Skip to content


Kulsum Bibi Vs. Zaibulnissa Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All250
AppellantKulsum Bibi
RespondentZaibulnissa Bibi
Excerpt:
.....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.....1. we admit the validity of these objections. assuming the judge considered the excuse now alleged for the delay in the presentation of the appeal in the court below (of which there is no proof), we cannot hold that an error in the calculation of the time allowed was, under the circumstances, sufficient cause for the delay. we decree the appeal, and, reversing the order of the lower appellate court, reject the appeal presented to the judge on the ground that it was barred by limitation. the appellant will recover costs in this and the lower appellate court from the respondent.
Judgment:

1. We admit the validity of these objections. Assuming the Judge considered the excuse now alleged for the delay in the presentation of the appeal in the Court below (of which there is no proof), we cannot hold that an error in the calculation of the time allowed was, under the circumstances, sufficient cause for the delay. We decree the appeal, and, reversing the order of the lower Appellate Court, reject the appeal presented to the Judge on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The appellant will recover costs in this and the lower Appellate Court from the respondent.


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