res nullius - bull set at large in accordance with hindu religious usage--'stolen property'--act xlv of 1860 (penal code), section 410, 411. - 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.....straight, j.1. the case, decided by me, of queen-empress v. bandhu. i. l. r., 8 all., 51, was determined after very full and careful discussion and prolonged consideration. munshi kashi prasad in that case was good enough to lay before me all the information that was obtainable in reference to the practice and procedure among the hindus in the matter of dedication or setting loose these bulls upon the death of a relative, and from that information it was placed beyond doubt that, as understood among men of that religion, the person letting loose the animal, by the act of so doing, surrendered and abandoned all proprietary rights therein. my brother brodhurst in the case of queen-empress v. jamura, weekly notes, 1884, p. 87, obviously adopted this view, which i hold to correctly represent the real condition of things. this being the case, i am not disposed in any shape to depart from my ruling referred to by me, or to modify the opinion i then expressed. this application for revision, therefore, must be allowed, upon the ground that there was no property capable of being made the subject of dishonest receipt or possession within the meaning of section 411 of the indian penal code, and, acquitting; the petitioner, i direct that he be released.