Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Ebrahim Aboobaker And Anr. vs Tek Chand Dolwani And Ors. on 10 April, 1953

Tarapada Mahato & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 July, 2022

The supreme Court has again decided in the case of (1) Ebrahim V. Tek Chand, AIR 1953 Supreme Court; 298 that the provisions of the code are not applicable to the proceedings before the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, though such proceedings were pf a quasi- judicial nature. Mr. Sen has relied upon an unreported decision of the Madras High Court Notes whereof are to be found in (2) AIR 1955 NUC (Mad. 2133) which of course supports his contention and the view that I have just taken.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - H Tandon - Full Document

Wazira And Anr. vs Shamulal And Ors. on 18 June, 1960

In such a case, I have no doubt that the proceedings taken by the Custodian would be entirely without jurisdiction and Section 46 of the Act cannot be allowed as a bar in the way of the civil courts going to hold that the order passed by the Custodian was without jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. Reference may be made in this connection to Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand, AIR 1953 SC 298.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Azizun Nisa And Ors. vs Asst. Custodian And Ors. on 11 April, 1957

and Sub-section (4) laid down that where after the vesting of any evacuee property in the Custodian any person was in possession of it, he should on demand surrender possession of it to the Custodian. Now no proceedings under Section 7 were taken in the present case, neither did the Custodian hold an inquiry about the property in dispute being evacuee property nor did he give notice of any such inquiry to the persons interested, nor did he pass an order declaring the property to be evacuee property. In other words he did not proceed under. Section 7 at all. Neither had anything been done or any action been taken in exercise of the powers conferred by the Ordinance, No. XII, nor was that Ordinance of any validity. Therefore, the Custodian could not avail himself of the provisions of Section 55 (3) of the Ordinance, No. XXVII, and could not say that the property in dispute had become, evacuee property already. He also did not declare the property to be evacuee property. Nothing, therefore, vested in him under Sub-section (1) or could be deemed to have been vested in him under Sub-section (2), and he had no jurisdiction to demand possession over the property in dispute under Sub-section (4). It was observed in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand, 1953 SCR 691 at p. 701: (AIR 1953 S.C. 298 at p. 301) (G) that the property must be declared to be evacuee property under Section 7 of the Act No. XXXI before it can vest under Section 8 (the relevant provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, No. XXXI are similar to those of Sections 7 and 8 of the Ordinance no. XXVII).
Allahabad High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Mohammad Hamid Hussain vs Asstt. Custodian Of Evacuee Property, ... on 22 February, 1962

9. I very much doubt, however, whether the observations .................. made in Ebrahim Aboobaker's case, AIR 1953 SC 298 can be stretched to .............. this extent. It is important to note that in that case the evacuee had died before the property had vested in the Custodian; whereas in the present instance we have to consider a situation in which the evacuee died" after, the vesting had taken place. In the former case, the heirs obviously inherited the property outright and it became theirs without any kind of restriction; and by the time the Custodian attempted to take it over and deal with it, it no longer belonged to an evacuee. But in the present case, the property was taken over while the evacuee was still alive and must be deemed to have validly vested in the Custodian; and the heirs inheriting that property subsequently cannot be treated as occupying the same position as they would have done if the property had not already vested. Once vesting has taken place, it remains unaffected by the death of the evacuee, as is clear from the provisions of Section 43 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which runs as follows :
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhirgunandan Prasad And Ors. vs The Assistant Custodian And Ors. on 4 December, 1957

The object and the scheme of the Act leave little doubt that the Act is intended to provide for the administration of evacuee property; and as the Supreme Court has pointed out in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand, AIR 1953 SC 298 (D), the property was ultimately to be used for compensating the refugees who had lost their property in Pakistan, and the Act contains elaborate provisions as to how the administration was to be carried out. In my opinion, the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, including the impugned Section 17, come under the saving clause of Article 31 (5) (b)(iii) of the Constitution and the constitutional objection raised on behalf of the appellants must be rejected for this reason also.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Arun Kumar Sinha And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 February, 1964

In support of this proposition, he referred to the case of Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand, AIR 1953 SC 298 : 1953 SCR 691. The provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act came to be considered in that case and it Was held that the Custodian got dominion over the property only after the declaration was made. Their Lordships' view was that the declaration followed upon the inquiry made under Section 7, but until the proceeding was taken under Section 7, there could be no vesting of the property and consequently no right in the Custodian to take such possession of it. It was then observed as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next