Skip to content


Chiranji Singh and ors. Vs. Dharam Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All173; (1921)ILR43All402
AppellantChiranji Singh and ors.
RespondentDharam Singh
Excerpt:
.....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 school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to..........in muhammad niaz khan v. jai ram (1919) i.l.r. 41 all. 503 and also covered by a decision of the calcutta high court in crowdy v. reilly (1912) 17 c.w.n. 554. the ruling of the madras high court (1902) 13 m.l.j. 370 which has been mentioned is a very brief decision which gives no reasons. we prefer to follow the ruling of this court, and of the calcutta high court which recommend themselves to us and we therefore allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the courts below. the case will have to go back to the court of first instance for trial on the merits, it having been dismissed by that court on a preliminary point law. we, therefore, order the record to be returned to that court with directions to restore it to its file on its original number and to proceed to hear and determine.....
Judgment:

Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.

1. The question of law which arises in this case for decision is covered by a decision of a Divisional Bench in Muhammad Niaz Khan v. Jai Ram (1919) I.L.R. 41 All. 503 and also covered by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Crowdy v. Reilly (1912) 17 C.W.N. 554. The ruling of the Madras High Court (1902) 13 M.L.J. 370 which has been mentioned is a very brief decision which gives no reasons. We prefer to follow the ruling of this Court, and of the Calcutta High Court which recommend themselves to us and we therefore allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the courts below. The case will have to go back to the court of first instance for trial on the merits, it having been dismissed by that court on a preliminary point law. We, therefore, order the record to be returned to that court with directions to restore it to its file on its original number and to proceed to hear and determine it according to law. Costa of this appeal will be costs in the cause.


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