<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (10) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175927</link>
    <description>Section 27 revisional power under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was treated as unconstrained by any prescribed limitation period, and the statutory deeming and saving provisions, including Section 58(3), allowed earlier acts under the repealed regime to be brought within the later Act. The earlier order was therefore not insulated from revision merely because it had attained finality under the repealed law. The revisional process also had to comply with natural justice: where fresh material was relied on without proper disclosure or a meaningful chance for rebuttal, the proceedings were vitiated and the order could not stand. The matter was remitted for fresh decision after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175927</link>
      <description>Section 27 revisional power under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was treated as unconstrained by any prescribed limitation period, and the statutory deeming and saving provisions, including Section 58(3), allowed earlier acts under the repealed regime to be brought within the later Act. The earlier order was therefore not insulated from revision merely because it had attained finality under the repealed law. The revisional process also had to comply with natural justice: where fresh material was relied on without proper disclosure or a meaningful chance for rebuttal, the proceedings were vitiated and the order could not stand. The matter was remitted for fresh decision after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>