MEMON ABDUL KARIM HAJI TAYAB versus DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL, NEW DELHI AND OTHER

MEMON ABDUL KARIM HAJI TAYAB versus DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL, NEW DELHI AND OTHER

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of amended Section 48, being procedural, apply retrospectively to claims investigated after the amendment. The property vesting in the Custodian was an actionable claim, not the actual money. Limitation had not begun as no demand was made before migration; thus, the claim was not time-barred...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab; Respondents: Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 February 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Recovery of Sums as Arrears of Land Revenue, Administration of Evacuee Property, Limitation on Actionable Claim
Evacuee Property Limitation Law Recovery of Sums as Arrears of Land Revenue Administration of Evacuee Property Limitation on Actionable Claim

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab

Appellant

Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 applies to recovery proceedings for sums deposited prior to the amendment date
  2. 2 Whether the actionable claim vested in Custodian was barred by limitation at the time of vesting
  3. 3 Whether recovery can proceed under Section 48 or Section 9 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of amended Section 48, being procedural, apply retrospectively to claims investigated after the amendment. The property vesting in the Custodian was an actionable claim, not the actual money. Limitation had not begun as no demand was made before migration; thus, the claim was not time-barred when it vested. Appeal fails as arguments not raised before authorities cannot be entertained for the first time in Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed