https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292430 The Ordinance on evacuee property was explained as a custody-and-administration scheme, not confiscation: title was not extinguished, the property could be managed and restored, and the Custodian acted as a statutory manager, so Articles 14 and 31 were not treated as infringed. On the facts accepted by the Custodian, migration to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and an unreal partnership dissolution supported the finding that the partner was an evacuee and the others were intending evacuees. As to intending evacuees, Article 15 was held inapplicable, Section 21 was upheld as a reasonable public-interest restriction, and Section 20 was viewed as vulnerable because it conferred unguided discretion over transfers. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:23:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292430 The Ordinance on evacuee property was explained as a custody-and-administration scheme, not confiscation: title was not extinguished, the property could be managed and restored, and the Custodian acted as a statutory manager, so Articles 14 and 31 were not treated as infringed. On the facts accepted by the Custodian, migration to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and an unreal partnership dissolution supported the finding that the partner was an evacuee and the others were intending evacuees. As to intending evacuees, Article 15 was held inapplicable, Section 21 was upheld as a reasonable public-interest restriction, and Section 20 was viewed as vulnerable because it conferred unguided discretion over transfers. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292430