Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coal mines nationalisation act 1973 preamble 1 coal mines nationalisation act 1973 Court: delhi Page 1 of about 905 results (0.203 seconds)

Balaraj Jadhav & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... company and that products thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good. the argument that there is no specific provision in the act as contained the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act or in the coal mines nationalisation act, 1973 does not carry the matter any further because the idea embedded in those provisions are this enactment, as explained earlier. if disinvestment ..... company other than a government company, there certainly would have been an indication to that effect in the act itself. the question, therefore, is whether absence of specific provision as contained in the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act or in the coal mines nationalisation act, 1973 that the shareholding shall always be held by the government, will give a different complexion to these .....

international Airport Authority of India Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1991Delhi302; 43(1991)DLT601a

..... own the property in question. it was held that the company was a separate legal entity, and u/s. 5(1) of the coal mines nationalisation act, the right, title and interest in a national coal -mine vested, by directions of the central government, in the company. it is for this reason that the land and building was not to be ..... regarded as the property of the central government. it was held that the property vested with the company and it stood transferred to it after the nationalisation of the coal fields. 348 ..... which is similar to the provisions of the international airports authority act and came to the-conclusion that the income belonged to the corporation, which was a separate juristic entity. the decision of the supreme court in the case of western coal fields ltd. : [1982]2scr1 (supra) is, however, more apposite. property tax was sought to .....

Smc Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(98)DRJ601

..... by the government of india, ministry of coal (respondent no. 1), in terms of its letter dated 13.1.2006. the said statutory provisions ..... prospective allocates including the petitioner for a captive mining dispensation in respect of the new patrapara [patrapara-aunli-machhkata part) block in the mahanadi coalfileds limited (mcl) area in pursuance of the provisions contained in section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 [coal mines act in short] . this allocation has been made ..... the requisite bank guarantee of rs. 138.77 crores has already been provided by respondent no. 3.8. section 3 of the coal mines act postulates that the coal mines specified in the schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the central government. section 5 empowers the central government to .....

Madan Mohan Prasad Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1991(3)Crimes302; 45(1991)DLT191

..... the bunducolliery.(7) madan mohan prasad while working as deputy secretary of department of mines, govt. of bihar was dealing with this matter on behalf ofoovt. of ..... rights of bundu colliery were owned by the south karanpura coal company. action taken by the govt. of india for terminating the lease-hold rights of this company was challenged by it and ultimately the supreme court of india injuncted the coal mines nationalisation amendment act and passed interim order directing this. company to operate ..... the above said date and place, you being a public servant posted as deputy secretary, department of mines,government of bihar obtained a sum of rs. 5000.00 from shri virenpandey, chairman south karanpura coal co. ltd. as gratification other than legal remuneration by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing .....

Jaswant Worah and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT1; 1992(22)DRJ476

..... claim for compensation as owner of the ganhcodih colliery in accordance with law. (4) the coal mines were nationalised by the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972. under this act, the mines vested in the government with effect from 1st may, 1972. the act contains a schedule showing the various mines which come under the nationalisation scheme. the mines involved in this petition is shown as seriall no. 156, namely, ganhcodih, in the ..... 7th additional district judge, dhanbad in miscellaneous case no.54 etc. of 1985 where by the right of the petitioners to claim management compensation under the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was rejected on the ground that on-the date of vesting, the petitioners were neither the owners nor occupiers rather they were at best trespassers and so .....

Sstate Vs. Mohd. Afzal and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669

..... to being members of banned terrorist organisations and charge no. 12 in addition charges the accused of harboring terrorists, concealing terrorists, facilitating commission of a terrorist act or acts preparatory to terrorist acts. no doubt that the charge could have been better worded and 16 made a part of charge 12, but no prejudice has been caused. the ..... fine. (3) whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly facilistate s the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall ..... was erroneous or was not authorised by him and made no attempt to withdraw the same, with the result that in terms of section 58 of the evidence act, certain acts and documents referred to in the order dated 5.6.2002 stood proved on record without formal proof. on 1.7.2002, ms. seema gulati moved .....

Mohan Lal Goela Vs. Siri Krishan

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1978Delhi92

..... he has used. he has made it plain by express language in one of the key definitions in the act.60. the act provides for limited habitability. it is in a limited sense that the right to tenancy is conferred on cer14n ..... contractual tenanev the statutory tenant has onlv a personal right to continue in possession till evicted in accordance with the provisions of the act.' 76. in damadi lai : air1976sc2229 their lordships referred to their own previous decisions in anand nivas : [1964]4scr892 and j ..... indicate that he was acting ir bad faith. the court of the commercial sub-judge was unable to entertain the suit because the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction on the court after that court had deter mined the value of ..... the property at r, 51,000'- based a, it was on an agreement of the parties. in fairness and just the period ought to be excluded. t.p.s. chawla. j. took this view while allowing the amendment. i take the same view under s, 14 of the limitation act .....

Sushil Kumar and Others Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1983(12)ELT687(Del)

..... of customs and superintendent, preventive service customs, calcutta and other v. charan das malhotra : 1973ecr1(sc) , which dealt with almost identical provisions in the customs act 1962, was followed. the supreme court had affirmed the judgment of the calcutta high court in charandas malhotra v. assistant collector of customs and superintendent preventive service ..... cause might be allowed : sub section (3).60. this section is concerned with the reopening of cases which already stood 'finally' concluded before the amending act came into force. hence the phrase 'past confiscations' is the title. it is not concerned with cases which were still pending, whether at the stage ..... earlier law. the sub-section (3) states as follows : 'if any person who did not own, possess, hold or control before the commencement of this act, any quantity of gold in excess of the quantities specified in sub-section (5), acquires, after such commencement, the ownership (whether by succession, intestate or testamentary .....

Raja Ram Goyal Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 12(1976)DLT34a; 1976RLR41

..... anand nivas private ltd. v. anandji kalyanji v. bedhi and others. : [1964]4scr892 ). while interpretting the provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act (57 of 1947) the supreme court, further, held : 'in this clause the expression 'tenant' apparently means a contractual tenant, for it authorises a landlord to recover possession ..... the creation of sub-tenancy on oral consent, even in cases where there was no such consent. the legislature, thereforee, while enacting the provisions of 1958 act, made a conscious departure from the previous enactments and laid down the requirement in section 14(l)(b) that the consent of subletting must be in writing ..... was satisfied, inter alia, that the tenant has, without the consent of the landlord, sub-let the entire house. the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, 1947 gave protection to the tenants but similarly provided the eviction of tenants, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant without the consent of the landlord, .....

Krishan Gopal Malhotra Vs. Vijay Kumar

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1973Delhi265; 9(1973)DLT267

..... the satisfaction of the court, the landlord may obtain an order for eviction against his tenant. (7) our interpretation of these provisions of the 1952 act: the 1952 act wests the jurisdiction to try a suit by a landlord against a tenant under section 13 in the ordinary civil courts. the suit under section 13, ..... or to pecuniary jurisdiction are to be distinguished from an objection to inherent jurisdiction. (30) as the present appeal is governed by the provisions of the 1952 act, the order of eviction was validly made against the legal representatives with jurisdiction by the civil court concerned. the appeal is, thereforee, dismissed with costs. counsel' ..... and the application is not maintainable. if he decides against the legal representatives, when he would find that he has no jurisdiction to proceed under the 1958 act and would, thereforee, dismiss the petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction. similarly, if the legal representatives plead an independent title, then also the .....