AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 83

7.40. Reasoning examined.-

Some of the judicial decisions taking the narrower view have stated that the matter could be dealt with by the procedure laid down in sections 35 and 36, which contemplate a suit against the guardian, where an administration bond has or has not been taken, respectively. That procedure, however, is some what cumbersome and we do not see any reason why, in a proper case, the Court itself should not have power, under section 34(d), to direct payment.

It is, no doubt, true that the inquiry under section 34 is, in general, of a summary nature-a reason advanced in support of the narrower view in one of the earlier Lahore cases.1 However, as was pointed out in a later decision of the same High Court,2 on such a view, the scrutiny of the accounts practically becomes a farce.

1. Faqir Mohammed v. Bhari, AIR 1932 Lah 306.

2. Chaman Singh S/o Har Kaur, AIR 1933 Lah 484 (485).



The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Certain Provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys