| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/503220 |
| Subject | Property;Civil |
| Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-09-1960 |
| Case Number | Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957 |
| Judge | H.R. Krishnan, J. |
| Reported in | AIR1960MP253 |
| Acts | Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31 |
| Appellant | Abdul Rehman |
| Respondent | Assistant Custodian |
| Appellant Advocate | W.Y. Pande, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Balwant Singh, Adv. |
| Disposition | Application dismissed |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - he has, however, impleaded the assistant custodian who passed the original order from.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]orderh.r. krishnan, j. 1. this is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. the petitioner's contention is that rule 31 of the evacuee property rules is itself ultra vires of section 26 of the administration of evacuee property act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by act no. 91 of 1956).2. strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this court. he has, however, impleaded the assistant custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the custodian. this appellate court's order was made on 16-2-1956. he.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
H.R. Krishnan, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Abdul Rehman Vs Assistant Custodian - Citation 503220 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503220', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51999/administration-of-evacuee-property-act-1950-repealed-complete-act">Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950</a> - Sections 26, 26(2) and 56; Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1956; Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 31', 'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 61 of 1957', 'appellant' => 'Abdul Rehman', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Abdul Rehman Vs. Assistant Custodian', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'W.Y. Pande, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Balwant Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1960-01-09', 'deposition' => 'Application dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.R. Krishnan, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. </p><p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).</p><p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.</p><p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.</p><p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1960MP253', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Assistant Custodian', 'sub' => 'Property;Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $args = array( (int) 0 => '503220', (int) 1 => 'abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503220/abdul-rehman-vs-assistant-custodian' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>H.R. Krishnan, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application of a person declared to be an evacuee, from the order of the Custodian, refusing to admit an application for review, on the ground that it was patently time barred. The petitioner's contention is that Rule 31 of the Evacuee Property Rules is itself ultra vires of Section 26 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) as it stood before the amendment of 1956 (by Act No. 91 of 1956).', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded the Custodian from whose order on the petition for review he has come up to this Court. He has, however, impleaded the Assistant Custodian who passed the original order from which the petitioner had unsuccessfully appealed to the Custodian. This appellate Court's order was made on 16-2-1956. He went up in review on 4-10-1956 about seven and a half months later, though Rule 31 has provided that such review applications should he filed within thirty clays. As the rule stood originally, Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to these proceedings. It is not necessary to consider the effect of the amendment of the rule, dropping Sub-rule (7), because the petitioner did not try to satisfy the Custodian that he had sufficient cause, nor has he alleged here that his application should have been entertained on account of the benefit he derives from S. 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act. His contention is that R. 31' providing for limitation for review application is ultra vires of the Statute and therefore should not have been invoked by the Custodian.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The relevant section is Section 26 Sub-section (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. By the Act No. 91 of 1956, Section 26 was itself dropped: but that was subsequent to the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 relates to revision and uses the words 'at any time'; but Section 56(2)(r) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the limitations of appeals and revisions. Here we are dealing with an application for review under Section 26(2), which does not say 'at any time', but only enables a Custodian to review his own order after giving notice to the parties. Thus at all events, in regard to review there is no fetter on the rule-making powers. Even in regard to revision, there is express provision in Section 56(2)(r). In that section, there is a general Clause (1), empowering Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and a second clause setting out, but not exhaustively, the matters on which they may be framed; it is without prejudice to the generality of the first sub-section. Item (f) in this list does not probably by oversight, make mention of review. But it can always come under the general Sub-clause (1). Certainly, the purpose of the Act can be carried out only if there is some control over such proceedings, and the finality of the decisions is assured by barring attempts to reopen settled cases after a prescribed period. Thus it cannot at all be contended that Rule 31 prescribing limitation goes beyond the scope of rule-making powers given by Section 56, or contravenes anything contained in Section 26(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. In the result the application is dismissed. Hearing costs Rs. 25/.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109