In Re: Reference Under Act No. I of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 49 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

act no. i of 1879, (indian stamp act), section 8, sub-section (4), clause (b)--stamp-bond--promissory note. - 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 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.....orderjohn edge, kt., c.j. and mahmood and knox, jj.1. the case reported in i.l.r. 10 mad. 158, does not apply to the facts of this case. the document in this case is not in our opinion 'attested by a witness' within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 of act no. i of 1879. what is said to be an attestation is merely a statement in writing by the scribe of the document that the document was correct and was written by his pen. we therefore answer the question referred to us by saying that the document in question cannot be treated as a bond as denned in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 of act no. i of 1879.

Judgment:

ORDER

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Mahmood and Knox, JJ.

1. The case reported in I.L.R. 10 Mad. 158, does not apply to the facts of this case. The document in this case is not in our opinion 'attested by a witness' within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Act No. I of 1879. What is said to be an attestation is merely a statement in writing by the scribe of the document that the document was correct and was written by his pen. We therefore answer the question referred to us by saying that the document in question cannot be treated as a bond as denned in Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Act No. I of 1879.