Mumbai Court September 1921 Judgments
Abdul Rahman Ismail Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.445
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. If the second accused is sentenced to be detained under rigorous imprisonment in the Juvenile Prison at Dharwar for two years, as be is a lad of sixteen, and the first accused, who is an adult, although he admittedly has three previous convictions, is sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, it follows that the Magistrate gave the second accused a longer sentence because he considered that it would be for his benefit to remain within the walls of the Dharwar Institution for two years. It is nowhere laid down that a Magistrate has such powers to increase the sentence of imprisonment on this ground. However desirable it might be for the Magistrates to have such powers, the sentence is one under the Indian Penal Code, but as the rules with regard to the detention of a juvenile in the Dharwar Jail provide that no one should be admitted into the jail unless he has been sentenced to a period of one year or upwards, the result is, that in the case of juveniles Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Keval Vs. Madhu Kala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1191
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem the plaint properties on payment by instalments of the sum that might be found due on taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act of the mortgage of the 19th July 1892. These properties were mortgaged by the plaintiff's father Kala to the deceased Kalyanchand. Kala died about eighteen years ago leaving the plaintiffs and their brother Shiva, now deceased, as his heirs. The first and second defendants are the representatives of Kalyanchand, while the other defendants are alienees from the mortgagee. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff's were entitled to redeem the properties still in the hands of the representatives of Kalyanchand. With regard to certain other properties which had been alienated, it was contended that the plaintiffs' such was barred under Article 134 of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act. Admittedly the suit was brought more than three years after the first plaintiff came of age, but le...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Hiralal Seth Vs. Bai Mani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1279
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. His Lordship after setting out the facts proceeded:- It has been contended that a mortgagee of shares is in the same position as a life-tenant, and that any accretion to the mortgaged shares by the issue of fresh capital must be treated as belonging to the corpus but, as pointed out by Lord Herschell in Bouch v. Sproule (1887) 12m App. Cas, 385 that depends on whether accumulated profits are distributed as dividend or converted into capital. If, as in that case, a sum which is entered in the balance sheet to the credit of the Reserve Fund is transferred from the Reserve Fund to the Capital Account and new shares issued to the existing shave-holders, it may be said that there is a distribution of capital and the life-tenant can only get the interest on the new shares, but if the share-holders prefer that instead of getting dividends paid to them in cash, the amount to the credit of profit and loss account available for payment of dividends in a particular yea...
Tag this Judgment!Zipru Chindhu Shimpi Vs. Bomtya Dagadu Kumbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1195
Shah, J.1. In this case one Vedu had two sons: a legitimate son called Chindhu and an illegitimate son called Dhaklu. Chindhu died leaving a son named Zipru. Dhaklu died with out leaving any relations and it is with reference to the property of Dhaklu that the present suit is brought by Zipru to establish his claim as heir to Dhaklu.2. It is established now, and in spite of the argument of the appellant to the contrary, it must be accepted that the illegitimate son of a Sudra cannot inherit the separate property of his father's legitimate son, as a brother. It is sufficient to refer to the decision in Dharma v. Sakharam I.L.R (1919) Bom. 185; 22 Bom. L.R. 52. in which the earlier decisions bearing on this point have been referred to. It has been argued that it does not follow necessarily from that decision that Zipru, the son of the legitimate son of the original ancestor, could not inherit the property of Dhaklu, the illegitimate son of Vedu. There is no authority on the question befo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›