TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 sets aside High Court order, clarifies property character determination date</h1> <h3>Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, New Delhi and Ors. Versus Official Receiver of The Estate of Daulat Ram Surana, Delhi</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Court held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Relevant date for determining the character of the property under Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.2. Retrospective operation of the declaration of evacuee property.3. Conflict between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the Provincial Insolvency Act.4. Interpretation of Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.5. Impact of the death of an alleged evacuee on proceedings under Section 7(1).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Relevant Date for Determining the Character of the Property:The primary issue is the relevant date by reference to which the character of the property must be determined when issuing a notification of evacuee property under Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the character of the property must be made at the time of the declaration under Section 7(1). If the property is not evacuee property at the relevant time, no declaration can be made under Section 7(1), and there would be no scope for the retrospective operation of the vesting of the property in the Custodian under Section 8(1).2. Retrospective Operation of the Declaration of Evacuee Property:The appellants argued that the vesting of the evacuee property in the Custodian should take effect from the date the evacuee migrated to Pakistan, even if the declaration was made later. The Court, however, clarified that Section 8(1) provides for a statutory consequence of a valid declaration made under Section 7(1). Therefore, Section 8(1) cannot be used to interpret Section 7(1), and the property must be evacuee property at the time of the declaration.3. Conflict Between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the Provincial Insolvency Act:The appellants contended that the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act should prevail over the Provincial Insolvency Act due to Section 4(1) of the former. The Court rejected this argument, stating that there is no inconsistency between the relevant provisions of the two Acts. Section 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, which states that the insolvent's property vests in the Official Receiver from the date of the petition, does not conflict with Sections 7(1) and 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.4. Interpretation of Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act:The Court emphasized that Section 7(1) requires the Custodian to form an opinion that the property is evacuee property at the time of the declaration. The property must bear the character of evacuee property when the opinion is formed. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the property's status should be determined based on its status at the time of the evacuee's migration, as this would lead to anomalous results and defeat the purpose of the Act.5. Impact of the Death of an Alleged Evacuee on Proceedings Under Section 7(1):The Court discussed the impact of the death of an alleged evacuee on proceedings under Section 7(1), referencing the case of Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand Dolwani. The Court noted that Section 7(1A) was added to allow the continuation of proceedings even after the death of the alleged evacuee. However, this provision does not authorize the commencement of proceedings after the death of the alleged evacuee. The High Court's reliance on this case was deemed irrelevant for construing Section 7(1) in the present context.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Court held that the relevant date for determining the character of the property under Section 7(1) is the date of the declaration, and the property must be evacuee property at that time. The Court also clarified that there is no conflict between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the Provincial Insolvency Act, and that Section 7(1) should be interpreted in light of the Act's purpose and other relevant provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
