Skip to content


DIn Dayal Vs. Gur Saran Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All253(2); (1920)ILR42All336
AppellantDIn Dayal
RespondentGur Saran Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....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 all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the.....tudball and muhammad rafiq, jj.1. in our opinion, the decision of the learned judge of this court is correct. we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.

1. In our opinion, the decision of the learned Judge of this Court is correct. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.


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