Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coking coal mines nationalisation act 1972 section 12 payment of further amount Court: madhya pradesh Page 1 of about 44 results (0.098 seconds)

Feb 02 1988 (HC)

Pilani Investment and Industries Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union o ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1988MP181; 1988MPLJ266

..... process for the good of the community within the meaning of article 39(b). again in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd., air 1983 sc239 it has been held that coking coal mines (nationalisation) act is a legislation for giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing the principle specified ..... in article 39(b) of the constitution and is, therefore, immune under article 31c, from attack on the ground that it offends the fundamental right guaranteed by article 14. nationalisation of coal mines ..... unsecured loans of the government and banks.11. the petitioners pointed out that the provisions of coal mines (nationalisation) act, and sick textile undertakings (nationalisation) act are not akin to those of the hind cycles (nationalisation) act and differences in the relevant provisions were highlighted. no two acts can be identical and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1986 (HC)

Coal Mines Authority Ltd., Calcutta and ors. Vs. Associated Cement Com ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1986MP241; 1986MPLJ612

..... whenever a question arises as to whether a particular asset vested in the central government as a consequence of the application of the coal mines (nationalisation) act to that particular mine, what is to be seen is whether it answers the description given in any of the clauses. what is, therefore, to ..... .e., the plaintiff. the dispute, however, is as to what actually so vested. 'mine' and 'coal mine' have been assigned special significance under the coal mines (nationalisation) act. 'mine' is defined under section 2(h) which reads as follows :'(h) 'mine' means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has ..... nationalisation act. likewise, clause (x) is also not attracted. in terms of that clause, only such lands, buildings and equipments belonging to the owners of the mine which are in, adjacent to or situated on the surface of the mine where the washing of coal obtained from the mine or manufacture, therefrom, of coke is carried on 'are mines .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1988 (HC)

Kulbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1989MP279; 1988MPLJ301

..... is a distributive process for the good of the community within the meaning of article 39(b). in sanjeev coke mfg. 'co. v. m/s. bharat coking coal ltd. air 1983 sc 239 it was held that nationalisation of coal mines in whole or in part is a law for implementation of article 39(b). the supreme court in state of tamil ..... base had been eroded many times over and the companies could be restarted with unencumbered assets only after total elimination of the external liabilities through a process of nationalisation. the provisions of the act do not offend article 21 nor they are in contravention of articles 300a or 301. prioity has to be given regarding payment ..... of commerce, bombay. the suit was allowed and the matter was referred to the named arbitrator on 4-5-1979. thereafter hind cycles limited and sen-raleigh limited (nationalisation) ordinance, 1980 was promulgated on 25-10-1980 which was subsequently made act no. 70/1980 -- by notification dt. 28-10-1980 the central government transferred the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2000 (HC)

Stanley Ward and ors. Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(3)MPHT491; 2000(3)MPLJ380

..... enacted the coal mines nationalisation act, 1973 (no. 26 of 1973) which came into force with effect from 1-5-1973. by the said enactment the coal mines including the mines of m/s. shaw wallace were nationalised and the management of all the private coal mines vested in the company called coal india limited. ..... thereafter, seven subsidiaries were formed such as western coalfields limited, south eastern coalfields limited, eastern coalfields limited, central coalfields limited, northern coalfields limited, bharat coal coking limited arid central mines ..... effect from 1-5-1973. the amended provision reads as under :'14. liability of officer or other employee of a coal mine for transfer to any other coal mine.-- notwithstanding anything contained in the industrial disputes act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or in any other law for the time .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1994 (HC)

Prem Kaur Ahuja Vs. Sardar Karam Singh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ938

I.P. Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction in respect of the ground floor of the house occupied by him as a tenant has been passed.2. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction originally on the grounds of nuisance, arrears of rent and material alteration. By amendment dated 31-7-1979 the landlord added the ground of bond fide requirement on the allegation that his son who is working in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board has been transferred to Jabalpur. Both the courts have ordered eviction on the grounds of nuisance, bona fide need and material alteration by making unauthorised construction of a wall and converting verandah into a room. The second appeal was admitted by this court on 28-9-1993 on the following substantial questions of law :(1) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree granted by the Courts below for ejectment under Section 12(1 )(a), (c) and (m) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2000 (HC)

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rfeeka Sultan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT288

ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Whether Insurance Company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.1. Mahmood Ul Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1400/- per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from Bus Stand on 18-2-1996, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station -Hanumanganj and case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code filed in the Court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood Ul Hassan was conducted on 19-2-1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. was Insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. Four Lacs, since th...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1998 (HC)

Rajendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(3)MPHT172

ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. 'Awake, Arise, 'O' Partha', Lord Krishna thus commanded Arjun, his chosen 'Sakha' and dearest disciple, during the war of Mahabharata to carry on the crusade against the 'Adharma'. Many a determined and dedicated crusaders have selflessly fought against evil being inspired by their 'Gums', enthused by their self-protested ideals and sometimes emboldened by the mandate of the majesty of law which has to rule supreme in every circumstance and on each occasion performing its noble duty of a great leveller. With the aforesaid attitude, tenacity, devotion and consecration respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Director General, Special Police Establishment and the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment have drawn an FIR contained in 'Annexure P-26' to this Writ Petition against the present petitioner, the erstwhile Minister of Housing and Environment, Department of State of Madhya Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) read wit...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2001 (HC)

Sitaram Vs. Mansha Ram and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT111

..... do what otherwise appears to have been done by him has to prove such allegation. necessarily burden to prove such an allegation lies on the plaintiff. subhra mukherjee v. bharat coking coal ltd. (air 2000 sc 1203). thus, evidence led by the parties have to be scanned and appreciated for seeing whether such an allegation was established.8. mansha ram (p.w .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1996 (HC)

National Textile Corpn. (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insu ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ975MP

..... the industries (development and regulations) act or the sick textile. undertakings (taking over of management) act, 1972.4. section 3 of the sick textile undertakings (nationalisation) act, 1974 provides for acquisition of rights of owners in respect of sick textiles undertakings and lays down that on the appointed day, every sick textile undertaking ..... act, the petitioner no. 1 being the subsidiary of the national textile corporation limited.5. according to the petitioner, the sick textile undertakings, which were nationalised, were in a state of acute crisis. the plant and machinery of these undertakings were old and revival needed substantial inputs of finances, in addition to ..... even an option to wind up the said company by (sic.) the force of the prohibition contained in section 35 of the said sick textile undertaings (nationalisation) act, 1974. the learned counsel has further averred that even before any notice was issued, the dues were satisfied and this was also a strong reason .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2011 (HC)

Rameshwar NekhrA. Vs. the State Bar Council of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

1. The first mentioned of these two connected writ petitions being W.P. No. 6628/2011 has been filed by the present Chairman of the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. The second connected petition being Writ Petition No. 6372/2011 has been filed by a Member of the said Bar Council. Both the petitions have been filed for the same relief2 on virtually the same grounds. They have been heard together and are consequently being disposed of by this common order. Two broad questions have been raised (A) whether the Rule 122-A framed under section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is ultra-vires, and (B) whether the second resolution (Annexure R/6 to the Bar Council’s return) dated 16-04-2011 in the meeting of the Bar Council is invalid. The relevant facts are given below.  2. Shri Rameshwar Neekhra was elected as a Member of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council in 2008. Shri Neekhra was elected as Chairman of the Bar Council by its members on 31.8.2008. 3. For prescribing (i) the manner of...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //