Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
J.R. JANI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AHMED EBRAHIM OF RANGOON.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 732 JT 1996 (3) 156
1996 SCALE (2)585
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though the respondent initially had appeared through
Shri I.N. Shroff, Advocate, on his demise, notice was issued
on February 29, 1992 to the address available on record and
till date nobody appears for the respondent. Neither
unserved envelope nor acknowledgement has been received.
Under these circumstances, the notice must be deemed to have
been served on the respondent.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated
February 19, 1973 made in L.P.A. No.85/70 holding that the
L.P.A. is not maintainable. Therefore, the appellants have
challenged the original order of the learned single Judge
dated November 24-25, 1969 made in Special Civil Application
No.893 of 1965.
The substance of the contention raised and answered in
the High Court was that the respondent was at the material
point of time a Burmeese citizen and he was never an
evacuee. He held the shares of the Khatiawad Industries
Ltd., a company, in former Junagadh State, which was
declared as an evacuee company in 1959. He claimed that in
the memory of his father and grand-father Ibrahim Vali
Mohammed and Company he purchased six lakhs shares in the
said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. under an agreement dated June
12, 1944. He and his brothers had agreed to give those
shares to him. He all along was a resident of Burma.
Consequently, he was not an evacuee. Without notice to him
under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Administration of
Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Rules, the declaration of
the said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as an evacuee property is
illegal. The learned single Judge has held that though the
respondent has filed a revision under Section 27 of the Act
since notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 was not served
on the respondent, the declaration that the Khatiawad
Industries Ltd. is an evacuee property is illegal and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
therefore, a non-est.
The question is: whether the view taken by the High
Court is correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had
filed a revision before the revisional authority under
Section 27 who had given him an opportunity to adduce
evidence to show that he had purchased shares of a value of
Rs. 94,000/- which he claimed to have had in Khatiawad
Industries Ltd. Except producing a stamp paper of 8 annas
value on which there was a mention of the purchase of the
shares in the name of Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company, no
other evidence was adduced. The revisional authority on
weighing the evidence found that the respondent was a
business Tycoon having business interest in all over the
Asian countries; it would be unlikely that he would not have
mentioned in any of the books of accounts about the purchase
of value of shares worth a sum of Rs. 94,000/- and odd
without being submitted to any authorities for income tax
purposes etc. The agreement on stamp paper was not attested
by any Magistrate or by a Notary as was in vogue in that
State. It was, therefore, difficult to believe that the
respondent had purchased 6 lakhs of shares of Khatiawad
Industries Ltd. for a sum of Rs.94,000/- and odd. Thereby,
he had not shown that he had got an interest in the evacuee
property. It is seen that though there is no notice served
on the respondent as required under Section 7 of the Act
read with Rule 6 of the Rules before declaring Khatiawad
Industries Ltd. to be an evacuee property, at a revision, an
opportunity was given to the respondent to adduce evidence
to prove that he had held the shares of Khatiawad Industries
Ltd. of the value of Rs. six lakhs for a sum of Rs. 94,000/-
and odd. Even though the respondent had appeared initially
through counsel, nothing has been placed on record of this
Court at least to establish that he had purchased six lakhs
shares of a value of Rs.94,000/- and odd from Khatiawad
Industries Ltd. which was declared to be an evacuee
property. Under those circumstances, we think that the
learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with
the declaration that the Khathiawad Industries Ltd. is an
evacuee property.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and the Writ
Petition stands dismissed. No costs.