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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2123; 1986LabIC1944; (1986)IILLJ139SC; 1986(1)SCALE1300; (1986)3SCC338; [1986]2SCR1044; 1986(2)LC293(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court purporting to do so on behalf of 700 workmen claiming relief for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare that Natundihi Pahariabera Colliery has vested in the Central Government and in the alternative directing the Union of India to take over the colliery under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and treat the petitioner and other workmen as workmen of the Central Government and to work the colliery by employing the workmen and to pay them arrears of their wages with effect from April, 1980.2. Subodhchandra Mondal, respondent No. 4 obtained a composite lease for mining coal and fire clay and other minerals for a period of 30 years in respect of an area of 344.44 acres comprising Natundihi Paharlabera Colliery from the Government of West Bengal. According to the petitioner Subodhchandra Mondal after obtaining permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3524; 2009(6)MhLj398
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally with consent of parties.3. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division whereby he allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code and rejected the plaint. The appellantsplaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. Plaintiff No. 1 is the businessman of Nagpur and mainly deals in coal mining. He has therefore an experience in the field of mining while plaintiff No. 2 is also a successful businessman and has an experience in the field of sponge iron and steel. Defendant No. 1 is a public limited company and No. 2 is its director. The said Company was incorporated in the year 2001. When the company was incorporated authorised capital of the said company was Rs. 10 lac while the paid up capital was Rs. 5 lac. It is a public limited company. It is alleged that since inception the said company was being only managed by defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR611; 2007(5)BomCR481; (2007)109BOMLR1959; 2008(1)MhLj753
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Proprietor of M/s Akanksha International, which has purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited in auction sale conducted by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Securitisation Act, 2002'), for direction to the respondent Electricity Distribution Company to consider application for fresh electricity connection to the petitioner and to quash and set aside the letter dated 1.6.2007 issued by the respondent to the petitioner as illegal. By the said letter the respondent has insisted on the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,30,78,926.87 plus interest which were arrears of electricity charges due from erstwhile consumer M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited.2. The petitioner stated that the State Bank of India, Jalna Branch had granted fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3277; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)65; 1(2004)BC173(SC); [2003]117CompCas123(SC); (2003)4CompLJ1(SC); 2003(4)CTC237; JT2003(Suppl1)SC515; 2003(7)SCALE491; (2003)7SCC532; [2003]
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In these two writ petitions filed in public interest the petitioners are calling in question the decision of the Government to sell majority of shares in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and viotative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977. 2. The petitioners contended that in the Preamble to these enactments it is provided that oil distribution business be vested in the State so that the distribution subserves the common general good; that, further, the enactments mandate that the assets and the oil distribution business must vest in the State or in Government companies; that, they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD408; 2002(1)ALT241
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the State Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review petition is the question referred to this Full Bench.FACTS:2. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police of Karimnagar District in the year 1990. By an order dated 31-10-1991, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he did not undergo the three star test at the time of selection. He filed O.A.No. 47791 of 1991 before the learned Tribunal challenging the order of termination wherein direction was given to the respondent to conduct the test for the petitioner. The respondent found that the petitioner did not come up for selection in the test conducted. The petitioner challenged the said order in O.A.No. 4322 of 1993. The learned Tribunal by reason of an order dated 6-3-1995 allowed the O.A., filed by the petitioner. As the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1761; (2000)2UPLBEC1270
Palok Basu, J.1. This bunch of 73 cases, raises important question of law which may be having far reaching consequences, therefore, more than sufficient time was provided to the learned counsel for the parties to ventilate their grievances and respective arguments which all of them have done with great ability.2. On February 24, 1997. 'Shaktinagar Special Area Development Authority (Cess on Mineral Rights) Rules, 1997' (hereinafter referred to as the Cess Rules) having been promulgated through publication in the U. P. Gazette, all the petitioners seem to have been asked to pay Cess in accordance with the Cess Rules and it appears that by the notice of demand the amount so calculated was demanded and the petitioners having not paid the Cess, the recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue have commenced and each one of the petitioners has rushed tothis Court challenging those recovery proceedings and the citations issued by the recovering authorities for attempting to collect the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(4)AWC3403
Sudhir Narain, J.1. These two cross-appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 18.8.1988 partly decreeing the suit in respect of certain properties involved in the suit and dismissed the suit in relation to other properties.2. The defendants, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, has filed First Appeal No. 265 of 1989 against the part of the decree whereby the suit has been decreed and First Appeal No. 949 of 1988 has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against part of the decree whereby the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.3. The factual backdrop of the case is that prior to 1946, there weretwo independent companies, viz., Raza Sugar Company and Buland Sugar Company. M/s. Govan were its Managing Agents. In the year 1946, the Dalmias purchased it from M/s. Oovan Brothers. The Dalmias got both the companies amalgamated in the year 1957 and it formed one company in the name and style of 'Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited'. In the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
N. Pandey, J.1. This appeal by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (defendant) is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, 2nd Court. Dhanbad, in Money Suit No. 18 of 1986, whereby and whereunder, the plaintiffs suit was decreed in part for Rs. 34,63,950/- (rupees thirty four lacs sixty three thousand nine hundred and fifty) coupled with damages at the rate of Rs. 175/-per month per decimal so long the defendant retains the possession of the suit land or regular sate deed was executed by the plaintiff.2. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that he acquired 20-16 Acres of land comprising of various plots under Khata Nos. 1 and 2 at Mouza-Durgapur within Jharia Police Station in the district of Dhanbad for valuable consideration by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 16-2-1970 and 8-6-1979 from Jiv Rai M, Patel Narasi R. Chodwa, Khem Shankar Jain and Smt. Gomati Ben Kharfeha and since then he had been coming in possession over the same. The acqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1728; (1989)3CompLJ80(SC); JT1989(3)SC125; 1989(2)SCALE54; (1989)3SCC411; [1989]3SCR455; 1989(2)LC479(SC)
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The coal resources in the country have been brought under State ownership and control by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Coking Act') and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Coal Act'). These Acts completely divest the ownership rights in the mines from the owners to the Central Government. The Acts provide for payment of specified amount to each of the owners in lieu of take-over. Out of the said amount the claims of the creditors of the owner and other liabilities against him are to be satisfied and the balance, if any, is to be paid to the owner. The Acts further provide for accrual of interest on the payable amount for the procedural-period. Section 18(5) of the Coal Act and Section 21(5) of the Coking Act provide that the interest accruing on the amount shall ensureto the benefit of the owners of coal mines.2. The short question for consideration in these appeals is whether the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!