In August, 1951, the Official Receiver wanted to sell some items of the insolvents property and the sale was fixed to be held on the 18th August, 1951.
The revision application filed by the respondent was also dismissed.
The respondent challenged this order by preferring an appeal before the Authorised Dy.
The respondent then moved the Punjab High Court by a writ petition and challenged the validity of the orders passed by the respective authorities under the Act, declaring the property of Daulat Ram as evacuee property.
Custodian, Evacuee Property, the Authorised Dy.
When this matter was taken up before Bishan Narain J. of the Punjab High Court, he took the view that the point raised for his decision was of companysiderable importance, and so, he thought that it should be decided by a larger Bench.
These objections were overruled by the Assistant Custodian and the property of Daulat Ram was declared evacuee property on the 15th February,1954.
To this petition, the Dy.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 18, 1960, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ No.
Ganpathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellants.
Two days prior thereto, however,.
Custodian, and when the appeal was dismissed, he moved the Custodian General in his revisional jurisdiction.
On the 14th March, 1950, Nanak Chand and certain other persons claiming to be his creditors, filed a petition of insolvency against the firm of Daulat Ram and against Daulat Ram himself.
It is against this order that the appellants have companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court.
Custodian and the Assistant Custodian were impleaded as respondents.
These are the appellants before us.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
An Indian citizen named Daulat Ram Surana was carrying on business at Delhi as a jeweller in the name of Sardar Singh Daulat Ram.
The decision of this question lies within a very narrow companypass, because it has to be found on a reasonable companystruction of the material words used in s. 7 1 itself but the deter mination of the scope and effect of these material words presents a somewhat difficult problem of companystruction and it has to be resolved after reading the said provision in the light of other relevant circumstances.
The respondent came to know of the said proceedings, appeared before the Assistant Custodian and raised objections to the property of Daulat Ram being declared as evacuee property.
S. Pathak and B. C. Misra, for the respondent.
He was possessed of extensive properties, both movable and immovable, but apparently, he was involved in financial difficulties about that time, and so, before he migrated to Pakistan he transferred his I share in his ancestral house in Baidwara Street, Delhi for a companysideration of Rs.
200 D of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C. J. What is the relevant date by reference to which the character of the property has to be determined in issuing a numberification of evacuee property under section 7 1 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 No.
31 of 1950 hereinafter called the Act ?
the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a numberice under S. 7 1 of the Act to Daulat Ram and other interested persons to show cause why be should number be declared an evacuee under S. 2 d i of the Act.
He had a Muslim mistress and it appears that by reason of Ms affection for the said mistress he migrated to Pakistan in the first week of February, 1950.
That is the short question which arises in this appeal.
489 of 1962.
That is how the writ petition was placed before a Division Bench of the said High Court.
On June 17, 1950, both the firm and Daulat Ram were adjudicated insolvents and the respondent, the Official Receiver, was appointed the Receiver of the estate of the insolvents.
