<?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>1964 (9) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279625</link>
    <description>A declaration under section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 may validly be made where the property was that of an evacuee at the time of migration, even if title had later vested in the Official Receiver under insolvency law before the declaration. The Court read section 7(1) with the definition of evacuee property, the saving and prohibition provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole, and held that a literal approach would defeat the Act&#039;s object of preventing evacuees from defeating the law through transfers or intervening vesting. The declaration was therefore not invalid merely because the insolvent had lost title before notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (9) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279625</link>
      <description>A declaration under section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 may validly be made where the property was that of an evacuee at the time of migration, even if title had later vested in the Official Receiver under insolvency law before the declaration. The Court read section 7(1) with the definition of evacuee property, the saving and prohibition provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole, and held that a literal approach would defeat the Act&#039;s object of preventing evacuees from defeating the law through transfers or intervening vesting. The declaration was therefore not invalid merely because the insolvent had lost title before notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>