Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: enemy property act 1968 section 15 returns as to enemy property Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 128 results (0.118 seconds)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2010(1)SC380; 2010(1)SCALE487; (2010)2SCC492; 2010(2)LC734(SC)

..... was issued to the custodian on 6.2.2008, and in his reply the said custodian replied that there was no provision in the enemy property act, 1968, to refund any amount received from enemy property. in response it was also indicated clearly that no amount was admissible to the applicant by way of refund.6. it is on account ..... be the sole legal heir and successor of the late raja of mahmudabad, he had succeeded to the properties belonging to the late raja which had been taken over by the custodian of enemy property under the provisions of the enemy property act, 1968. it has further been contended that it could not, therefore, be disputed that the applicant is ..... and profits collected prior to 5.4.2002, is clearly provided in section 18 of the enemy property act, 1968 which provides that the central government may by general or special order, direct that any enemy property vested in the custodian under this act and remaining with him shall be divested from him and be returned, in such manner as .....

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC4383; 2006(1)BomCR639; [2005(4)JCR206(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC25; 2005(8)SCALE523; (2005)8SCC696; 2006(1)LC44(SC)

..... passing of the order. respondent's prayer for mesne profits and compensation in respect of the properties in question were rejected. 5. counsel for the parties have been heard at length. the enemy property act, 1968 was enacted for purpose of continued vesting of enemy property, vested in the custodian of enemy property for india under the defence of india rules, 1962 and the defence of india rules, 1971 ..... . section 2(b) defines enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm and the same reads as under:- '2(b) 'enemy' or 'enemy subject' or 'enemy firm' means a person or .....

Liaq Ahmed and ors. Vs. Shri Habeeb-ur-rehman

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2000SC2470; 85(2000)DLT358(SC); JT2000(5)SC611; 2000(4)SCALE100; (2000)5SCC708

..... india which could not be alienated or sold to the respondent-landlord. reliance was placed on section 18 of the enemy properties act, 1968. it was further pleaded that under section 19 of the said act the rent controller had no jurisdiction. the appellants further submitted that the sale deed in favour of the respondent was not legal and genuine as the same was allegedly ..... to see the distinction between the evacuee property act under which the order dated 30th march, 1954 was passed and the enemy property act, 1968 regarding which letter ekhibitp-1 dated 15th october, 1970 was issued intimating that the property, the subject matter of the litigation, had vested in the custodian of enemy properties for india. the question as to whether the property had actually vested or not, the consequence .....

Abid-ul-islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... and (iii) there are alternative accommodations by way of other properties available for carrying out the business of the appellant as such ..... the act in the year 2014.4. the respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend, inter alia, raising three primary contentions, namely, (i) the appellant is not having title over the property; (ii) the property actually belongs to the government of india under the enemy property act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as enemy property act ) ..... the averments of the respondent regarding alternative accommodation are vague; the title of the appellant cannot be questioned; and the embargo under the enemy property act does not get attracted. thus, having found that the defense set up by the respondent is only a moonshine, the application filed .....

Lucknow Nagar Nigam Vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... (c) no.17402 of 2017 page 1 of 143 adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as act of 1959 , for brevity sake). bird s eye view of the controversy:3. whether statutory vesting of property termed as enemy property under the provisions of the enemy property act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act for the sake of convenience) amounts to expropriation which leads to the change of its status ..... ) rules, 1962, and subrule 4 of rule 138 of defence of india rules, 1971 implying that the enemy property is only held and managed by the custodian for a specific purpose. we ought to appreciate that the statement of objects and reasons of the enemy property act, 1968 intend to continue the vesting and maintenance of civil appeal @ slp (c) no.17402 of 2017 page 28 .....

Shamim Akhtar Vs. Iqbal Ahmad and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)612; 2000(7)SCALE197; (2000)8SCC123

..... of the suit in the small causes court loses its relevance and consequently, the objections raised on the basis of the provisions of the evacuee property act, 1950 and the enemy property act, 1968 which were introduced subsequently by the respondent lose their significance for the purpose of disposal of the proceeding. our attention has not been drawn to ..... relationship of landlord and tenant between them. he raised the contention that the suit filed by the appellant was barred in view of section 8 of the enemy property act, 1968. subsequently, respondent no. 1 sought an amendment of the written statement to introduce paragraph 29-a in which a plea was raised that since the real ..... maintainability of the suit in the court in view of the provisions in the evacuee property act, 1950 and the enemy property act, 1968 as a preliminary issue. by the order dated 14.10.1982 the trial court held that under the u.p. rent act the denial of title of land lord by the tenant is itself a ground for .....

Sewa Ram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC2620; JT1997(4)SC692; 1997(3)SCALE506; (1997)5SCC166; [1997]3SCR490

..... and appears to have obtained the bhumidari rights of his mother and sold the property to the appellants. the respondents had initiated proceedings against the property on the ground that mohd. marghoob siddiqui was an enemy and therefore, the enemy property act, 1968 (act no. 34 of 1968) was applicable. the appellants claimed title to the property. subsequent thereto, the appellants filed a suit for injunction to restrain the respondents ..... from taking possession of the property. ultimately they came to be unsuccessful in the revision before .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1973SC1032a; [1972]86ITR607(SC); (1973)3SCC339; [1973]2SCR460

..... were paying compulsory war damage contributions during the war in respect of the properties in which they were dealing. they received payments under the war damage act, 1943, in respect of the properties damaged by enemy action. they disposed of some of the properties but retained others as part of their stock-in-trade and either were ..... even after the partition the assessee continued the money lending business in malaya. during the war, in general with others, the assessee suffered damages to these properties on account of japanese bombing. this loss occurred on account of bombing in december, 1941. a date falling within the accounting period ending on april 12. ..... having them rebuilt or would have them rebuilt. under the war damage act, 1943, contributions made and indemnities given .....

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd. a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)370; AIR1996SC2005; [1997]89CompCas362(SC); 1996(2)CTC557; JT1996(4)SC679; 1996(4)SCALE202; (1996)4SCC622; [1996]Supp2SCR295

..... to the validity of the definition of 'illegally acquired properties' in clause (c) of section 3(1) of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act, 1976 (safema). the said act provided that where a person earned properties by smuggling or other illegal activities, all such properties, whether standing in his name or in the name ..... from the order of punishment imposing sentence of imprisonment and that the attachment was meant for realising amounts necessary for reimbursing the persons defrauded. the attached properties should now be sold and the proceedings therefrom utilised for paying the post-january 29, 1991 claimants, it is submitted. sri arun jaitley further ..... question as to whether the veil of the corporation should be lifted or not. broadly, where fraud is intended to be prevented, or trading with enemy is sought to be defeated, the veil of corporation is lifted by judicial decisions and the shareholders are held to be 'persons who actually work for .....

Ismailbhai I. Kansara(d) Th. Lr Vs. State Of Gujarat, Through The Chie ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... exist in favour of the petitioner and therefore, decisions cited at bar accompanying the written submission, in my view, would be of no avail to the petitioner and 2 enemy property act, 1968 2 therefore, the court need not detain itself elaborately on the aspect of regularization.3. in an intra court appeal, an order was passed on 20.01.2014 remanding ..... by one srikant deviprasad joshi was heard along with sca filed by the appellant. shri joshi was claiming right over the property in question on the basis of allotment made to him on 20.09.1972 as an enemy property2. the land allotted to shri joshi was cancelled on 06.12.1974. the appeal against the said order was dismissed ..... his possession alone can be examined.9. the circular dated 20.06.1978 is to the effect that the disposal of the evacuee property shall be regulated in accordance with provisions contained in section 20 of the act in the following manner: dated the 20th june, 1978 in supersession of the instructions issued in g.r.r.d. no. .....