Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)415; AIR1997SC1599; 1997(1)BLJR569; JT1996(10)SC584; 1996(8)SCALE472; (1997)1SCC177; [1996]Supp8SCR886
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Madanlal Agrawal for eviction of Bharat Coking Coal Limited from land and buildings allegedly owned by him adjacent to the coal mine known as Victory Colliery, which had vested in the Central Government by virtue of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Victory Colliery was owned by United Mining Company Private Limited. The case of the appellant is that the company was practically a one man company. If the corporate veil is lifted, it will be found that Madanlal Agrawal was de facto owner of the company. Madanlal Agrawal's case is that he had in his individual capacity purchased certain properties together with structures thereon by registered deeds of sale dated 7.7.1949 and 24.3.1950 and built further structures and remodeled them. The United Mining Company Private Limited took these structures on monthly rent. These structures were utilised as office premises of Victory Colliery as also staff quarters. Eviction was so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3425; [2005(4)JCR1(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC77; (2005)7SCC492
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The present appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi on January 25, 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 462, 472 and 473 of 2001. By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed intra court appeals filed by the appellant herein confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. To appreciate the controversies raised in the present group of appeals, few facts in the first matter (Central Coal Fields Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) may be noted.The appellant Central Coal Field Limited ('Company' for short) is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Darbhanga, Ranchi. It is one of the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited. The Company owns various coal mines in Districts Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamou and Ranchi. The Company is carrying on business in extracting, selling and distributi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1531; JT1989(3)SC170; 1989(1)SCALE852; 1989Supp(1)SCC628; [1989]2SCR283; 1989(2)LC218(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by certificates under Article 133(1) of the Constitution is from a decision of the Patna High Court which revered the decree in the suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. In the court of the Subordinate Judge, the First Court at Dhanbad, the plaintiff/appellants instituted a suit in respect of Schedule B of the plaint for a declaration of their homestead right thereto and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession. The suit property consists of 30 bighas, 18, kattar and 11 chhataks being part of plot Nos. 59 and 70 in village Dhansar. The plaintiffs' claim was based on a registered indenture of lease dated December 9, 1949 by which it is said that the possession in the zamindari right of Kali Prasad was settled to Ruplal Aggarwal, further of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs' claim that they have become the owners of the lease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom168
1. The plaintiffs -- Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, the manufacturers of Tata diesel vehicles, have filed the present suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,67,835/-being the arrears of monthly hire instalments in respect of three vehicles given under hire purchase agreements to the 1st defendants-Bharat Mining Corporation Limited with interest on the arrears of monthly hire charges at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem from 1st May 1974, till payment. The 2nd defendant was a guarantor. The 2nd defendant has, according to the plaintiffs, guaranteed the payment of the amounts due under the hire purchase agreements. The 3rd defendant is the Manager appointed under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The 4th defendants-the Coal India Limited is incorporated under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, and its previous name was the Coal Mines Authority Limited.2. According to the plaintiffs, by three separate and identical hire purchase agreements in writing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC697; (1982)2CompLJ793(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1775; (1982)1SCC125; [1982]2SCR1
Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals by special leave involve the question of the legality of the demand for Property-tax made by respondent 1 on the appellant Companies. Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1979 filed by the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. arises out of Misc. Petition No. 555 of 1977 filed by it in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondent 1 is the Special Area Development Authority, Korba, District Bilaspur, M.P., respondent 2 is its Chairman and respondent 3 is the State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the three appeals raise similar questions, we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1979 only. Civil Appeals Nos. 1025 and 1026 of 1978 are by Western Coalfields Ltd.2. The appellant, Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the entire share capital being owned by the Government of India. Respondent 1, the Special Area Development Authority for the Korba Special Area, is constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR437(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant (who was defendant No. 2 in the suit) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 and 08.03.1995 respectively passed by Shri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sub-Judge VI. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said title suit was decreed in part directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs, 25'51,568.16 paise along with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% within three months.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 on 15.09.1976 against the defendant-appellant and proforma defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a declaration that the goods mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint were taken over from the custody of the plaintiff-respondent on 18.09.1973 and 19.09.1973 illegally and without any authority of law and they did not vest in the Central Government and subsequently ..in the Coal Mines Authority Limited and its succ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC124; (1980)4SCC570; [1981]1SCR406
Sen J.1. These appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Delhi High Court, involve interpretation of Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as amended by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978, as well as of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 read with Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act.2. The importance of this case in its legal aspect consists in the question as to whether the Central Government has the power under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act to receive up to the specified date, i.e., June 30, 1975 any money due to a coal mine notwithstanding that the realisation pertains to a period prior to that date even though such amounts may not be the 'current assets', by reason of Explanation to Section 2(h)(xii), and to apply such realisations under Sub-section (4) thereof to discharge the liabilities of such coal mine which could not be discharged by the appointed day, i.e., May 1, 1973.3. The facts of the case are as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom174
Jamdar, J.1. Appellant M/s. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. has preferred these two appeals being aggrieved by the two decrees passed in favour of the respective respondent, but as the main question in these two appeals relates to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Coal mines (Nationalisatin)Act, 1973, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. M/s. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. was the owner of Kamptee Coliery. The respondents supplied good s on credit to the appellant-Company. The respondent in First Appeal No.33 of 1980 M/s. Mohanlal KISANLA, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, SUPPLIOED BAMBOOS (Ballis) worth Rs. 62,294-20 under Bill NOS. e-2 e-3 AND e-4 dated 29-1-1973. The appellant paid Rs. 2,2293-40 towards Bill No E-3 and gave two cheque of Rs. 5,000/- each to M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal on 30th Jan., 1973. Both these cheque dishonoured in view of th eCoal Mines (Taking over of Mangagement) Act, 1973, which, by virtue of S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)CTLJ1(SC); JT2007(1)SC125; 2006(13)SCALE102; (2007)2SCC640; 2007(2)KCCRSN91
S.B. Sinha, J.Introduction:1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. The validity and/or legality of a scheme framed by the Coal India Limited for sale of coal by Electronic Auction (E-Auction) is in question in these appeals and transferred applications. 3. 'Coal' indisputably plays an important role in the development of economy of the country. It had been the subject-matter of regulatory measures even under the Defence of India Rules. Production, distribution, supply and price of coal were controlled and regulated under the Colliery Control Order, 1945 (1945 Order) framed under the said Rules. The said Order was continued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the Colliery Control Order, the Coal Controller was even authorised to allot quotas of coal to the Central Government as well as the State Governments; although the said procedure is now not in vogue in view of decontrolling notifications issued thereunder by the Central Government from time to time. The...
Tag this Judgment!