TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court allows appeal, remands for retrial, emphasizes procedural fairness, awards costs.</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Custodian-General's order and remanding the case for a retrial. The Court directed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian-General under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.2. Validity and finality of the Deputy Custodian's order under the repealed ordinances.3. Procedural irregularities and breach of natural justice in the proceedings before the Custodian-General.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian-General under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950:The primary issue was whether the Custodian-General had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the order passed by the Deputy Custodian on October 12, 1949. Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, authorizes the Custodian-General to call for the record of any proceeding at any time to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by a subordinate officer. The Court noted that Section 27 does not prescribe any time limit for exercising this power, thereby allowing the Custodian-General to entertain a petition despite a significant delay. The Court held that the Custodian-General had the power to entertain the revision application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. Validity and Finality of the Deputy Custodian's Order under the Repealed Ordinances:The appellants contended that the finality of the Deputy Custodian's order under the repealed Ordinance 12 of 1949 was preserved, and thus, it could not be set aside by the Custodian-General under Section 27 of the Act. The Court analyzed the chain of ordinances and acts, noting that by successive statutes, actions taken under the earlier ordinances were deemed to have been done under the later statutes. The Court concluded that the order passed by the Deputy Custodian under Ordinance 12 of 1949 was to be deemed an order made under the Act 31 of 1950. Consequently, the order remained subject to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian-General under the new Act.3. Procedural Irregularities and Breach of Natural Justice:The Court found significant procedural irregularities in the proceedings before the Custodian-General. The Custodian-General had acted upon evidence introduced for the first time before him without giving the appellants an opportunity to rebut that evidence. The Court emphasized that the Custodian-General must follow the rules of natural justice, which include giving the affected parties a chance to meet the new evidence. The Custodian-General failed to provide the appellants with an opportunity to inspect the documents relied upon by the State of Uttar Pradesh and did not inform them that he had admitted copies of those documents into the record. The Court held that the proceedings were inconsistent with the procedure of a judicial trial and thus, the order of the Custodian-General was set aside.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Custodian-General and remanding the case for a retrial. The Custodian-General was directed to call upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to formally tender the evidence they relied upon and give the appellants an opportunity to present their evidence. The Custodian-General was instructed to hear both parties on the properly admitted evidence and dispose of the case according to law. The appellants were awarded costs in the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
