act no. iii of 1867 (public gambling act) section 12 - 'mere game of skill'--game of chance. -
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.....george knox and griffin, jj.1. we have carefully considered the description given of the game which both the courts below held to be not a game of
mere skill. the learned counsel for the applicant who asks us to interfere
with the view taken by these courts, has referred us to a calcutta ruling in criminal revision no. 771 of 1907 hari singh v. king-emperor. there is a material difference between the words used in
section 10 of the bengal public gambling act and section 12 of act no. iii of 1867, which is the act which governs the case now before us. we are by no means sure that the game which the calcutta
high court judges had under consideration was precisely the same as is described by the learned sessions judge of cawnpore. we are, of course, only concerned with the game described by th
e latter. from the description so given we find ourselves unable to interfere. we hold that the game described by the learned sessions judge of cawnpore is not a game of
mere skill. the application is dismissed.