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 : 1998VAD(Delhi)285; 3(1998)CLT609; 75(1998)DLT3; 1998(46)DRJ719
..... and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in public interest that the entire area defined as the national capital territory of delhi be nationalised for the purpose of operating stage carriage bus services and that these stage carriage services should be run and operated by the delhi transport corporation or ..... formulation of the impugned scheme and as pointed out by the respondents may briefly be noticed. prior to 1992, bus service in delhi was largely a nationalised affair. the buses were plied under delhi transport corporation, a public sector transport undertaking, hereinafter 'dtc', for short. very few stage carriage permits were issued ..... badges are not being issued by the sta frequently. 11) other factors are mechanical failure, natural disturbance, electrical poles etc. they further stated that nationalisation is not the solution of accidents. the person responsible for the accident is not being penalised and the poor bus owners are being penalised by imposing .....
Tag this Judgment!