TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Custodian-General had jurisdiction under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 to revise an order confirming an exchange that had been applied for before the 1950 Act came into force. (ii) Whether the revisional order setting aside the confirmation could stand on the merits, or whether the matter required fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether the Custodian-General had jurisdiction under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 to revise an order confirming an exchange that had been applied for before the 1950 Act came into force.
Analysis: The scheme of the successive evacuee property enactments showed repeated repeal and replacement of the earlier law, and section 58(3) of the 1950 Act made pending matters fall to be dealt with under the new law, while saving only the previous operation of the repealed law. The Court held that section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not govern the case because the repeal provision in the 1950 Act was self-contained and manifested a different intention. No vested right to obtain a final and conclusive order arose merely on filing the application; finality attached only when an order was actually made. Since the order of confirmation was passed in 1952, after the 1950 Act had come into force, it was subject to the revisional power conferred by section 27.
Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian-General was validly exercisable and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order setting aside the confirmation could stand on the merits, or whether the matter required fresh consideration.
Analysis: Although the jurisdiction existed, the revisional order itself was found to be unsatisfactory and lacking in clarity as to the basis and scope of the remand. The reasoning disclosed in the order was not sufficient to support the course adopted, and the Court considered that the proper course was to set aside that order and send the matter back so that the Custodian-General could reconsider it after giving both sides a full opportunity of hearing and, if necessary, specify the matters to be examined on remand.
Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and was set aside for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the matter was returned for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing and re-enacting statute contains a self-contained saving and deeming provision governing pending matters, the new statute applies to orders made after its commencement, and no vested right to the finality of an unmade order can be claimed merely from the filing of the application.
TaxTMI 
