LEKHRAJ SATRAMDAS, LALVANI versus DEPUTY CUSTODIAN-CUM-MANAGING OFFICER & ORS.

LEKHRAJ SATRAMDAS, LALVANI versus DEPUTY CUSTODIAN-CUM-MANAGING OFFICER & ORS.

The Deputy Custodian, having been vested with power to appoint the appellant as Manager under s. 10(2)(b) of the 1950 Act, had the implied power to terminate such appointment by virtue of s. 16 of the General Clauses Act. The validity of the removal order was unaffected by reference to the wrong statute, as the order was within the substantive statutory competence. No writ could be issued to enforce what was essentially a contractual obligation, nor was there any concluded contract or final allotment in favour of the appellant; thus, no right could be enforced by writ.

Parties
Appellant: Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani; Respondents: Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution From Decision of the Kerala High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Termination of Appointment, Powers of Public Authorities, Evacuee Property, Writ Jurisdiction and Contractual Rights
Administrative Law Property Law Constitutional Law Termination of Appointment Powers of Public Authorities Evacuee Property Writ Jurisdiction and Contractual Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani

Appellant

Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution From Decision of the Kerala High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Custodian could lawfully terminate the appellant's appointment as Manager under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the appellant as Manager was invalid for being made under the wrong act
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to a writ of mandamus for reinstatement or to restrain sale

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Custodian, having been vested with power to appoint the appellant as Manager under s. 10(2)(b) of the 1950 Act, had the implied power to terminate such appointment by virtue of s. 16 of the General Clauses Act. The validity of the removal order was unaffected by reference to the wrong statute, as the order was within the substantive statutory competence. No writ could be issued to enforce what was essentially a contractual obligation, nor was there any concluded contract or final allotment in favour of the appellant; thus, no right could be enforced by writ.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.