TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's removal from the management of the evacuee business concerns was lawful; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to mandamus on the footing that there had been a final allotment of the business in his favour.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant's removal from the management of the evacuee business concerns was lawful.
Analysis: The power to appoint a manager under section 10(2)(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 carried by necessary implication the power to suspend or dismiss the person appointed, as recognised by section 16 of the General Clauses Act. The order removing the appellant was therefore within the competence of the Deputy Custodian, and its validity depended on substance rather than the description used in the order.
Conclusion: The removal of the appellant from management was lawful.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to mandamus on the footing that there had been a final allotment of the business in his favour.
Analysis: The correspondence showed only a decision in principle and contemplated settlement of the terms and conditions of allotment at a later stage. No concluded contract of sale or final allotment had come into existence. A writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only to enforce a statutory duty, and a duty arising merely from a contractual or inchoate arrangement cannot be enforced in that manner.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to mandamus for possession or allotment of the business concerns.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the removal order and the claim to enforce an alleged allotment both failed, and the appellant obtained no writ relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to appoint a manager includes, by implication, the power to remove the appointee, and mandamus cannot issue to enforce a non-statutory or merely inchoate contractual claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
