Pandit Shyam Lal Vs. Badri and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....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 state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........claim of the plaintiffs accordingly. the lower appellate court, however, refused to allow interest at -the stipulated rate with monthly rests. it observed that the plaintiffs were illiterate persons and ignorant of the technicalities of law or legal expressions, and that they could not be expected to have fully realised the stipulation entered in the mortgage in regard to the payment of compound interest with monthly rests, the stipulation was undoubtedly unusual, hard and unconscionable; and. probably had its effect been fully realised by the plaintiffs at the time the mortgage deed was written they would not have agreed to the transaction. it cannot be said that the debtor entered into it with open eyes, or the lower appellate court finds, that he was, by reason of his illiteracy and ignorance of legal technicalities, unable to realise the effect of the same. a court of equity may, therefore, relieve him and grant such relief as the circumstances of the case may require. the decision in ghansham singh v. bhola singh a.i.r. 1923 all. 490 does not apply, because the question here is whether the executants understood and realised the effect of the terms entered in the.....