Advanced Search Results

Union of India Vs. A.B. Shah and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 22, 72, 73 and 79; Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 - Regulation 100(1); Consumers Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2

Reported in : AIR1996SC3281; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)15; 1996(2)Crimes181(SC); JT1996(5)SC128; 1996(4)SCALE307; (1996)8SCC540; [1996]Supp2SCR620

Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.2. The appellant preferred a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Regulation No. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 (hereinafter … advanced in defence before the Trial Court. They were that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the Act and in any case, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not in management of the

State Vs. Keshavlal Amrutlal Ozha and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Acts : Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 24, 24(4), 74 and 79; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 438

Reported in : AIR1958Bom243; (1958)60BOMLR551; 1958CriLJ756; ILR1959Bom358

Dhanbad and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Chhindwara. Similarly, notices of the accident under Section 23(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, were also given immediately.3. Early In May 1956, the Regional Inspector of Mines directed Bhankaran (P.W. 1), an … Being of opinion that the complaint was barred by time, he has reported the case to this Court.4. Section 79 of the Mining Act provides, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint

Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Shama Beedi Factory and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 13, 14(2), 14A(1) and 14A(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 251, 255(1), 468 and 472; Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 66 and 79; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898

Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)369; 2000CriLJ3427

are relevant legal provisions.13. In State of Bihar v. Deokaran : 1973CriLJ347 , the question arose under the Mines Act (1952). Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 provides that any person omitting inter alia to furnish any return, notice … the Act to be made or furnished shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-. Section 79 of the same Act, however, lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this

Bhagirath Kanoria and ors. Vs. State of M. P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalLabour and Industrial

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468, 468 (2), 472 and 473

Reported in : AIR1984SC1688; (1984)3CompLJ49(SC); 1984(2)Crimes441(SC); [1984(49)FLR382]; 1984(2)SCALE218; (1984)4SCC222; [1985]1SCR626

each year. Failure to forward the returns as required is punishable with fine Under Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952. The respondents having failed to furnish the returns by the due date, which was January 21, 1960 a … 12, 1961. One of the contentions of the respondents was that the complaint was barred by limitation Under Section 79 of the Mines Act which provided that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under that Act

Sugga Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and Others (Cr. M. (M) Nos. 576 and ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 16, 159, 160, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 200, 220, 234, 598, 610, 614A and 615; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468 and 472

Reported in : [1990]68CompCas625(Delhi); 1988(14)DRJ97b

the returns by the due date and they were prosecuted for an offence under section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 Section 79 of that Act provided that no court could take cognizance of an offence under that Act unless the … the returns by the due date and they were prosecuted for an offence under section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 Section 79 of that Act provided that no court could take cognizance of an offence under that Act unless the

Kuldip Singh and Vs. State and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : CriminalCompany

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 159; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468

Reported in : 34(1988)DLT11; 1988(14)DRJ97

the returns by the due date and they were prosecuted for an offence under Section 66 of the Mines Act 1952. Section 79 of that Act provided that no court could take cognizance of an offence under that Act unless the … the returns by the due date and they were prosecuted for an offence under Section 66 of the Mines Act 1952. Section 79 of that Act provided that no court could take cognizance of an The Supreme Court held that the

G.D. Bhattar and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Kolkata

Subject : CriminalLimitation

Acts : Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 17, 18, 18(1), 18(2), 39, 73, 78 and 79; ;Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946 - Rule 3(1); ;Mines Creche Rules, 1946 - Rule 3; ;Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 23 and 29(2); ;Constitution of India - Article 20; ;General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 24; ;Mines Act, 1923; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Section 403

Reported in : AIR1957Cal483,61CWN660

was somewhat different. That case arose out of certain prosecutions under Sections 73 and 66 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952 and there the point was raised that the rules and regulations framed under the old Act were no … Section 16 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923 which corresponded to Section 18 of the Mines Act of 1952. Section 16 of the Act of 1923 agrees word for word with Section 18 of the Act of 1952. … fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.'Then Section 79 of the Act lays clown the period of limitation in the following terms:'79. Limitation of prosecution.--No Court shall

Abdullabhai Kasamali Bohara Vs. the State

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR1163

under Act-Amendment of complaint six months after commission of offence, whether c2 valid.; Section 79 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952, purports to lay down a limitation for prosecutions under that Act, and the words of the section do

B Kumar Alias Brijendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Land Acquisition

of Gaslitand Colliery, Katras area for which a court of enquiry was constituted under Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952 (in short ‘the Act’) vide notification dated 17.10.1995 by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. At the … for the said accident alongwith other accused persons and also held that the cognizance of the offence under Section 79(iii) was taken under the Act within stipulated period of one year. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar

C.B. Bhandari Vs. Provident Fund Inspector, Bangalore

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Company

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468, 468(2), 469 and 472; Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act - Sections 14(2); ;Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 - Sections 19; Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 66 and 79; Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 - Sections 10, 10(1), 135, and 146; ;Metropolis Management (Amendment) Act, 1852 - Sections 85; Bombay City Municipal Act, 1888 - Sections 390(1)

Reported in : [1988]64CompCas850(Kar); 1987(3)KarLJ244; (1988)IILLJ400Kant

accused relied on State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, : 1973CriLJ347 . It was a case under the Mines Act, 1952. Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952, provides that any person omitting, inter alia, to furnish any return, notice, … to be made or furnished shall be punishable shall be with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000. Section 79, however, lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint