Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
Sheikh Mohd. Din, Sheikh Mehtab Din vs Thakar Singh, Gurmukh Singh And Anr. on 10 July, 1952
The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Sheikh Mohammad Din v. Thakar Singh, AIR 1952 Punj 428 (C), in which it was held that section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was not ultra vires of Article 31 of the Constitution. I respectfully agree with the view taken in all these three authorities.
Dwarkadas Shrinivas Of Bombay vs The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving ... on 18 December, 1953
The ordinance overrode the directors, deprived the shareholders of their legal rights and privileges and completely put an end to the contract of the managing agents. In substance, therefore, the Company and its shareholders as well as its directors and managing agents had been completely deprived of the possession of the property, and the effects of the Company and its possession had been taken over by the Central Government. In these circumstances it was held that in substance the impugned statute authorised deprivation of the property of the Company within the meaning of Article 31 without compensation and so the Statute had violated the fundamental right of the Company under Article 31 (2) arid as such was unconstitutional and void. In the present case the material facts are different and the provisions of Section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act are dissimilar in character. I am unable, therefore, to accept the argument of learned Counsel that the principle laid down in the second Sholapur case, AIR 1954 SC 119 (C) has any bearing on the question presented for determination in the present case.
Section 10 in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ebrahim Aboobaker And Anr. vs Tek Chand Dolwani And Ors. on 10 April, 1953
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.