Bulaichand Dutta Vs. NaraIn Chandra Dutta

Bulaichand Dutta vs NaraIn Chandra Dutta

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 28, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/877411

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/877411
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Newbould and ;Panton, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 28, 1918
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Sections 34(d), 45 - 'Recusancy' in Section 45, meaning of--Failure to comply with requisition. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bulaichand Dutta

Respondent

NaraIn Chandra Dutta

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1919Cal168(2),49Ind.Cas.624

Excerpt

guardians and wards act (viii of 1890), sections 34(d), 45 - 'recusancy' in section 45, meaning of--failure to comply with requisition. - 1. we think that the word recusancy' in section 45 of the guardians and wards act means something more than mere disobedience of an order to pay and that the opposite party should not be sent to jail in the absence of proof that he has some means. we accordingly discharge is rule but make no order as to costs.2. we note that the district judge has held that at any time the petitioner is able to show to the court on proper materials that the opposite party is in possession of property, which he has concealed, coercive action may be taken according to law. in that event further application may be made to the court of the district judge.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the word recusancy' in Section 45 of the Guardians and Wards Act means something more than mere disobedience of an order to pay and that the opposite party should not be sent to jail in the absence of proof that he has some means. We accordingly discharge is Rule but make no order as to costs.

2. We note that the District Judge has held that at any time the petitioner is able to show to the Court on proper materials that the opposite party is in possession of property, which he has concealed, coercive action may be taken according to law. In that event further application may be made to the Court of the District Judge.

Same Parties Bulaichand Dutta vs NaraIn Chandra Dutta Same Subject Property Same Judge Newbould and ;Panton, JJ.

Property