Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coking coal mines nationalisation act 1972 section 2 declaration as to the policy of the state Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 1 results (0.049 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 .....

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 .....