Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coking coal mines nationalisation act 1972 section 10 payment of amount to owners of coking coal mines Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 2 results (0.176 seconds)

Kripa Shankar Dwivedi Son of Shri Ranjit Ram and ors. Vs. U.P. State E ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2006)IILLJ687All

..... in the central government and subsequently in the bharat coking coal company ltd. both were made respondents before the tribunal. the award was delivered subsequently reinstating the employee with back wages fixing ..... represented by the bihar colliery kamgar union and bharat coking coal ltd. and ors. reported in air 1978 sc 979 : 1978 (37) flr page 144 wherein similar situation arose. industrial dispute with regard to dismissal of some of the employees of the new dharmaband colliery was pending on the date of enforcement of coking coal mines nationalization act, 1972. the new dharmaband colliery which vested .....

Rahul Industries Vs. Union of India

Court : Allahabad

..... the competent authority shall be necessary for the purpose of this order in respect of: (i) coking coal, semi-coking coal and weakly coking coal, hard coke and soft-coke; (ii) coal produced in private coal mines meant for captive consumption; and (iii) such grades of non-coking coal as the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify." 17. a perusal of the aforesaid clause - 12a discloses that the power ..... is vested in the central government to allot quota of coal to a person or class of persons .....

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC1900

Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, advocate for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Shanker Ray, senior advocate for respondent No. 4, Sri A.K. Mishra, advocate for respondent No. 3 and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. The writ petition, as originally filed, contains following relief :(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the Government order on the basis of which the respondents are trying to transfer the legally acquired property of the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 3 and thereafter to quash the said order ;(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide records relating to the alleged transfer of the property in favour of respondent No. 3 ;(iii) ...

Doctors' Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Avas Avam Vikas ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1984All234

..... retrospectively. there is nothing in the language of article 31c to show an intention of retrospectivity.'39. as already pointed out, in the case of sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. : [1983]1scr1000 , the supreme court, while commenting that in minerva mills' case the question with regard to the validity of extension of ..... according to him it does not.37. learned counsel for the respondents cited before us the decision of the supreme court in the case of sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. : [1983]1scr1000 . in this case, the supreme court had on occasion to refer to the changes introduced under article 31c of the ..... (b) or clause (c) of article 39 was given by the constitution (twenty-fifth amendment) act, 1971 itself and secondly, because the sick textile undertakings (nationalisation) act had been enacted before the constitution (forty-second amendment) act, 1976.'the supreme court also expressed its doubts about the correctness of the decision in minerva mills .....