act no. iv of 1869 (indian divorce act), section 3, clause (5) - minor children--age of majority--alimony--application for refund of alimony paid by mistake after period during which it was payable had expired. - 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.....knox and blair, jj.1. this is an application presented by one morgan setting out that sarah morgan, to whom alimony had been decreed under the orders of this court, had married one sergeant fox, and that irene morgan, for whose maintenance an order had been made, had attained majority on the 16th of april 1895. there was a further allegation that a daughter, clara, for whose maintenance an order had been made, had married in april 1893. the petitioner prayed for refund of all the moneys paid under the orders of this court to the three persons, sarah morgan, irene morgan and clara morgan, after the date on which sarah morgan had been remarried, clara morgan had married and irene morgan had attained majority. it was contended on behalf of irene morgan that she was still a minor. the authority for this contention was baaed on section 3 of the indian majority act of 1875. the indian divorce act contains in section 3, clause (5), the interpretation which is to be placed on the words 'minor children' wherever they occur in that act. it is admitted that on that interpretation irene morgan can no longer be considered a minor. with reference to the prayer that the sums already paid be refunded, we know of no authority for such a proposition, and we confess to feelings of surprise at such a request being made on the part of the father. the application was presented to this court on the 26th of august 1895. all sums which under our previous orders were payable to sarah morgan and irene morgan, and all sums which were paid into court before that date, will be made over to the parties to whom under our previous orders they were due and payable. any sums paid after that date and for a term subsequent to the 26th of august 1895, if there be any such, will be refunded to the petitioner. we give no costs.