Court : Delhi
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT1; 1992(22)DRJ476
..... , 1990 passed by 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 ..... 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... shri ashoke sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. but, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really to concern ourselves ..... is presumed not to have intended an excess of jurisdiction. in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. the constitution bench speaking through chinnappa reddy, j., had observed, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 that the court is not concerned with the statements made ..... of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in mr. x vs. hospital z , (1998) 8 scc296 sanjeev coke manufacturing company vs. m/s. bharat coking coal limited and another, (supra); and n.k. bajpai vs. union of india and another, (2012) 4 scc653 47. consequently, according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... shri ashoke sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. but, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really to concern ourselves ..... is presumed not to have intended an excess of jurisdiction. in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. the constitution bench speaking through chinnappa reddy, j., had observed, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 that the court is not concerned with the statements made ..... of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in mr. x vs. hospital z , (1998) 8 scc296 sanjeev coke manufacturing company vs. m/s. bharat coking coal limited and another, (supra); and n.k. bajpai vs. union of india and another, (2012) 4 scc653 47. consequently, according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... shri ashoke sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. but, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really to concern ourselves ..... is presumed not to have intended an excess of jurisdiction. in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. the constitution bench speaking through chinnappa reddy, j., had observed, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 that the court is not concerned with the statements made ..... of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in mr. x vs. hospital z , (1998) 8 scc296 sanjeev coke manufacturing company vs. m/s. bharat coking coal limited and another, (supra); and n.k. bajpai vs. union of india and another, (2012) 4 scc653 47. consequently, according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... shri ashoke sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. but, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really to concern ourselves ..... is presumed not to have intended an excess of jurisdiction. in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. the constitution bench speaking through chinnappa reddy, j., had observed, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 that the court is not concerned with the statements made ..... of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in mr. x vs. hospital z , (1998) 8 scc296 sanjeev coke manufacturing company vs. m/s. bharat coking coal limited and another, (supra); and n.k. bajpai vs. union of india and another, (2012) 4 scc653 47. consequently, according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... shri ashoke sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. but, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really to concern ourselves ..... is presumed not to have intended an excess of jurisdiction. in sanjeev coke mfg. co. v. bharat coking coal ltd. the constitution bench speaking through chinnappa reddy, j., had observed, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 that the court is not concerned with the statements made ..... of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in mr. x vs. hospital z , (1998) 8 scc296 sanjeev coke manufacturing company vs. m/s. bharat coking coal limited and another, (supra); and n.k. bajpai vs. union of india and another, (2012) 4 scc653 47. consequently, according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 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 provisions. when the provisions of the act provide for vesting of ..... 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 takes place and the company ceases .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi302; 43(1991)DLT601a
..... not 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 ( ..... 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 be levied in that case. a contention was sought to be raised .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the insurance industry and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and further to amend the insurance act, 1938, the life insurance corporation act, 1956 and the general insurance business (nationalisation) act, 1972.'28. the statement of objects and reasons ('sor') indicates that a need was felt for the insurance industry, which was being privatized, to be regulated. after specifying in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1981(43)FLR179]; 1981RLR92
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. These three writ petitions raise a common question of law. They were heard together. This judgment will govern them all. (2) T.B. Association of India is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It was founded in 1939 with the object of 'prevention, control, treatment and relief of tublerculosis.' They have also State Associations throughout India having similar objects. The Association has started a hospital known as Lala Ram Swarup T.B. Hospital at Mehrauli. They have also a T.B. Centre at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. (3) T. B. Association is petitioner in C.W. No. 1356 of 1978. Lala Ram Swarup T.B. Hospital is petitioner in C.W. No. '217 of 1978. T.B. Centre is petitioner in C.W. No. 1218 of 1978. We will take these three cases separately. (4) C.W. No 1356 of 1978. T.B. Association has a Provident Fund Scheme which is governed by the Provident Fund Act 1925 (Act of 25). In the Schedule to that Act the name of T.B. Asso...
Tag this Judgment!