Chitar Singh Vs. Th. Roshan Singh

.....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.....ordercollister, j.1. on 20th march 1926, the opposite party's transferor sold certain property to the applicants for rs. 28,000. a balance of rs. 7360 remained unpaid and for this the applicants on the same date executed a mortgage in favour of the vendor in respect to a portion of the property sold. ultimately the opposite party sued on his mortgage, and his suit was decreed. subsequently the applicants applied under section 8, debt redemption act, but their application has been dismissed. they have now come in revision to this court; but i am informed that one of them has since compromised the matter with the opposite party.2. the point for decision is whether the sum of rs. 7320 remaining due under the sale deed was or was not a loan within the meaning of section 2 (9), debt redemption act. i think there can be no doubt that it was not. it was the unpaid balance of the sale consideration and cannot be regarded as a loan, whether technically or substantially. learned counsel for the applicant who has not compromised seeks to distinguish the case in mohammad shibli khan v. ish datt dikshit : air1939 all398 , but i do not think there is any difference in principle. i dismiss the application with costs.