Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coking coal mines nationalisation act 1972 section 31 offences by companies Sorted by: recent Court: kolkata Page 1 of about 34 results (0.082 seconds)

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Turner Morrison Ltd. and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

..... was owning the suit premises, the said ownership right along with its assets and properties stood transferred to and vested on the plaintiff by virtue of the coal mines (nationalisation) act absolutely and free from all encumbrances. the learned senior counsel submits that the plaint does not have any spine and backbone to stand and an incredible ..... behalf of the applicants, submits that the basis of the plaint is discovery in october, 2012 by the plaintiff that by reason of the provisions of the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972, the property forming the subject matter of the suit has vested in the plaintiff and by reason thereof, the defendant is not the owner ..... calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction present : the hon ble justice soumen sen ga no.2797 of 2013 cs no.11 of 2013 bharat coking coal ltd.versus turner morrison ltd.& anr. for bharat coking coal ltd.: mr.mr.mr.mr.for turner morrison ltd.: mr.s.k.kapoor, sr.advocate mr.ranjan bachawat, sr.advocate mr.ratnanko banerjee .....

Turner Morrison Limited Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

..... act, the defendant discovered certain materials and documents to show that by operation of law the said premises has vested by operation of the provisions of the coking coal mines nationalization act, 1972. the property has vested in the defendant and in obligation to pay view any thereof, rent and the defendant occupation has charges. no ..... time was with allahabad bank who was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. accordingly the contention of the defendant that at the time when the coking coal mines nationalization act, 1972 came into force, lodna colliery was owner of the property in question is not only absurd but contrary to record. in support of ..... , the reliance was placed on a schedule to the coaking coal mines nationalization act, 1972 in order to sustain a plea of ownership in respect of the suit premises. mr.dutta has referred to a decision of the hon ble supreme court in bharat coking coal limited versus madanlal agarwal reported at air1997supreme court 1599 and contended .....

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. M/S. Auroma Coke Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

..... the government owing to heavy infrastructural investment required for establishing a washery. this was inevitable as coal mined in india has high content of ash. unless such ash content was reduced in a coal washery, there was no demand for the same. the low ash content of coking coal required by the industries compelled to import same from other countries which affected the foreign exchange ..... limited company having its registered office at calcutta. after nationalization of coal mines in the year 1973, private sector was not allowed to set up coal washeries. coal india ltd.(for short referred to as cil ) is the apex company which decides all policy matters on behalf of the subsidiary coal companies. the appellant bharat coking coal ltd.(for short referred to as bccl ) is one of .....

Coal India Limited Vs. Nicco Corporation Limited

Court : Kolkata

..... , a notice under section 446 of the companies act to the commissioner of payments appointed under the 1973 act and a further notice on the commissioner of payments under the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972 requesting such commissioners to refrain from settling the claims of, or making payment to, the creditors or contributories of the company (in liquidation) without obtaining leave of the ..... of commercial energy in the country and though it was available in adequate quantity the reserves were unevenly distributed among the different regions. it noticed that coking coal mines had been nationalised (under the 1972 act) and that non-coking coal collieries were small in size, financially weak and worked on unscientific lines with the colliery owners' primary object being to earn quick profits without any .....

Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

..... in relation to the management of barakar engineering and foundry works, dhanbad, to make the following contentions:a) there was a genuine industrial dispute.b) the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 did not prevent vesting of this dispute on the appellant.c) the tripartite settlement had been rightly interpreted by the industrial tribunal.d) the ..... has found that the tripartite settlement enjoined the previous owners to reinstate 600 odd workmen as stated above. further the tribunal held that section 7 of the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 did not prevent an industrial dispute which had arisen prior to the take over by the government, to be pursued against the new management ..... ors. : (2007) 5 scc 755.14. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent workmen has cited the decision of the workman v. the bharat coking coal limited and ors. : (1978) 2 scc 175 and the unreported decision of the division bench of our court presided over by the hon'ble justice satyabrata sinha, .....

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. and anr. Vs. J.G. Kumar ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2007(2)CHN226

..... kumar banerjee, j.1. appellant company being the successor-in-interest of thapar intrafor company of india ltd., filed the above writ petition inter alia challenging the vires of the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1973') as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents directing to hand over the plant and machinery mentioned ..... the same management;x) all lands, buildings and equipments belonging to the owner of the mine, and 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;xi) all lands and buildings [other than those referred to in sub-clause (x)] wherever situated, if solely used for .....

Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Kamal Prasad Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (2001)3CALLT4(HC),[2001(91)FLR778]

..... ltd. and was posted at kendua, dhanbad, bihar. thereafter, he resigned and joined marine coal co. bengal (p) ltd. after the passing of the coal mines nationalisation act. 1972 the government of india took over all the companies and formed coal india limited (hereinafter referred to as cil) under the provisions of companies act, 1956. after ..... colliery. then the government of india de-centralised the work of collieries and formed another company named bharat coking coal limited (hereinafter referred to as bccl) which is wholly owned as a subsidiary of coal limited and the gopalichuck colliery was transferred to the said new company. the petitioner is in administrative control ..... the petitioner. but the major penalties that is: compulsory retirement; removal from service; and dismissal can be imposed by the chairman managing director of coal india limited only.12. it was contended that the disciplinary authority who is not competent to pass major penalty cannot initiate any inquiry for a major .....

income-tax Officer Vs. East Indian Coal Co. Ltd

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in : (2000)73ITD230(Kol.)

..... , the interest of rs. 67,49,553 cannot be treated as income accrued to the assessee; there being diversion of income by overriding charge created by the statutes [both the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 and the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972]. we, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the orders of the cit(a). the appeals filed by the revenue are, therefore, dismissed. ..... incorporated under the u.k. companies act.it has coal mines in the state of bihar. the management of the coking coal mines was taken over by the central government on 17th october, 1971 and were thereafter nationalised on 1st may, 1972. in the case of non-coking coal mines, the management was taken over on 30th january, 1973 and nationalised on 1st may, 1973. under the aforesaid acts, assessee .....

Bharat Aluminium Company Limited and ors. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee and or ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1998)2CALLT60(HC),[1999(81)FLR52],(1999)ILLJ828Cal

..... pathak, reported in 1986 pljr 1168. in that case also, upon consideration of the provisions of sections 9 and 17 as also the provisions of the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, as also provisions of section 4 of the payment of gratuity act. sandhawlla. c.j, speaking for the bench stated:'equally worthy of notice ..... an award has been made by the industrial tribunal, would continue to be governed by the nationalisation act. in that case, the apex court was considering the provisions of sections 9 and 17 of the coking coal mines nationalisation act, which are in part materia with the provisions of the said act. the apex court ..... hereinafter referred to as the said act), whereby and whereunder the undertaking of the aluminium corporation of india limited (hereinafter called as aluminium corporation) was nationalised. the aforementioned nationalisation was made for giving effect to the policy decision as laid down under article 39(6) of the constitution of india. according to the writ .....

Kallol Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1994)2CALLT43(HC)

..... the learned advocate for the state that the aforesaid government orders are or the colliery control order, 1945 itself is no more applicable after the advent of coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973 is therefore found to be untenable. the provisions of the e.c. act not being attracted to the allegations made, the charge-sheets ..... notification was also issued under so no. 2426 dated 24-7-1967 inter alia in respect of coking coal not required for metallurgical consumers. in view of such notification the mere allegation that the soft coke coal, although lifted under valid authority from a colliery in bihar was being diverted to a different destination in ..... essential commodities act. what is mentioned in this connection in fir is diversion of coal to a different destination. it is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the coal in both the cases being soft coke coal and such coal having been the decontrolled by the appropriate orders of the government no offence punishable .....