https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273478 The SC held that a Custodian administering evacuee property under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n) could examine a creditor's monetary claim, including a money decree, and pay it from funds in his possession if satisfied the claimant was genuinely entitled. The civil court decree was not conclusive, so the Custodian had to act judicially and determine entitlement on merits. The deletion of Section 10(2)(m) and Rule 22 did not curtail this power, because the Section 10(2) clauses were illustrative and not exhaustive. The broader administrative power to discharge binding obligations of the evacuee remained intact. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:48:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273478 The SC held that a Custodian administering evacuee property under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n) could examine a creditor's monetary claim, including a money decree, and pay it from funds in his possession if satisfied the claimant was genuinely entitled. The civil court decree was not conclusive, so the Custodian had to act judicially and determine entitlement on merits. The deletion of Section 10(2)(m) and Rule 22 did not curtail this power, because the Section 10(2) clauses were illustrative and not exhaustive. The broader administrative power to discharge binding obligations of the evacuee remained intact. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273478