Mewa Ram Vs. Ram Gopal

.....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 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 namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........section 4 of the indian companies act (7 of 1913) and (2) that the partnership being an illegal association, no suit for the dissolution of partnership was maintainable in a court of law. the learned subordinate judge has held that as a matter of fact the number of partners in either of these associations did not exceed 20 and therefore the association was not illegal. in these appeals it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion as to the right inter he of the members, of any illegal association because we are satisfied that in neither of these cases the number of partners exceeded 20.2. admittedly the number of persons who executed the two deeds of partnership is only 10 and 12 respectively. the only way in which the defendant can urge that the number exceeds 20 is by saying that many of these executants are members of joint hindu families consisting of a large number of other members and if all other members of this family were to be counted, the total number exceeded 20. we are of opinion that this is not the tight method of calculating the number in order to ascertain whether the association consists of 20 or more members. if each of the executants entered into this partnership in his own individual capacity, he admittedly counts as one. on the other hand, if he entered into the partnership in his representative capacity on behalf of his family, then his joint family must be considered to be a unit and must be deemed to be one person within section 4 of the indian companies act. this view is in accord with the pronouncement of a division bench of this court in moti ram v. muhammad abdul jalil air 1924 all 414. we therefore think that the view taken by the learned subordinate judge that the partnerships in question were not illegal associations was correct. there is therefore no force in these appeals.mukerji, j.3. i entirely agree. i have just one word to add and that is as to the interpretation of section 4 of the indian companies act (7 of 1913).4......