The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an enemy property vesting order, holding that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 at the time the cause of action arose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133482-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15444 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kan Singh And 7 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Babu Tiwari,Dinesh Shankar Shukla,Om Narayan Dwivedi,Prabhakar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Rajesh Tripathi,Tej Prakash
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the enemy property vesting order is maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968
Whether the limitation bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked against seeking alternative remedy under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kan Singh And 7 Others
Union Of India And 5 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Manish Kumar Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
