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

Excerpt:
usurious loans act (x of 1918), section 3 - unconscionable bargain--illiteracy and ignorance of legal technicalities, whether a ground of relief - 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 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 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 of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, 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. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. kanhaiya lal, j.1. this appeal arises out a suit for the redemption of a mortgage effected by the plaintiffs, badri and kidar, in favour of the defendant on the 23rd of december 1915. the mortgage was effected for a sum of rs. 135, which was re-payable with interest at 2 per cent, per mensem compoundable with monthly rests. the plaintiffs pleaded that they never agreed to pay interest at 2 per cent, per mensem with monthly rests, and that the above term was entered in the bond without their knowledge, ' they further pleaded that the interest claimed was, in any case, hard and unconscionable. the trial court found that there was no proof of undue influence exercised by the creditor and that the terms entered in the bonds were binding on the plaintiffs. it decreed the entire 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 mortgage-deed, the finding on which is against the plaintiffs. the appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.