Skip to content


Shiam Karan and anr. Vs. Raghunandan Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR22All331
AppellantShiam Karan and anr.
RespondentRaghunandan Prasad and anr.
Excerpt:
letters patent, section 8 - appeal--presentation of appeal by a person other than an advocate, vakil or attorney of the court, or a suitor. - 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.....knox, actg. c.j. and blair, j.1. a preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the petition of appeal, which was presented in this court, was presented by an agent and not by any of the persons enumerated in section 8 of the letters patent of this court. the memorandum of appeal appears to have been presented by some person who was clearly neither of the appellants before the court, and who may or may not be a person holding a power-of-attorney to appear and act on behalf of the appellant. it is contended that a mere presentation of an appeal does not come within the words of section 8. we hold that this contention is wrong. the words of section 8 are very clear and positive. we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Knox, Actg. C.J. and Blair, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the petition of appeal, which was presented in this Court, was presented by an agent and not by any of the persons enumerated in Section 8 of the Letters Patent of this Court. The memorandum of appeal appears to have been presented by some person who was clearly neither of the appellants before the Court, and who may or may not be a person holding a power-of-attorney to appear and act on behalf of the appellant. It is contended that a mere presentation of an appeal does not come within the words of Section 8. We hold that this contention is wrong. The words of Section 8 are very clear and positive. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


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