Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeal allowed, case remanded for Coal Mines Regulations compliance under Mines Act. Consultation with Mining Boards.

        BANWARILAL AGARWALLA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

        BANWARILAL AGARWALLA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - 1961 AIR 849, 1962 SCR (1) 33 Issues Involved:
        1. Validity of Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, under Article 14 of the Constitution.
        2. Validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, under Article 14 of the Constitution:

        The appellant argued that Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, which allows for the prosecution of any shareholder or director of a company owning a mine, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention was based on the interpretation that 'any one' in Section 76 means only 'one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders.' However, this interpretation was previously addressed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106 of 1959, where it was decided that 'any one' should be interpreted as 'every one.' Thus, under Section 76, every shareholder of a private company and every director of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. Consequently, no violation of Article 14 arises.

        2. Validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, under Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952:

        The appellant contended that the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were invalid as they were framed in contravention of Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. Section 59(3) mandates that before any regulation is published, it must be referred to every Mining Board concerned, and the regulation shall not be published until each Board has had a reasonable opportunity to report on its expediency and suitability. It was undisputed that no Mining Board as required under Section 12 had been constituted when the regulations were framed, and thus, no reference to any Board occurred as required under Section 59.

        The Court analyzed whether the omission to make such a reference invalidates the regulations. It emphasized the legislative intent behind the statutory provisions, considering the language used, the scheme of the statute, the intended public benefit, and the material danger to the public from contravention. The Court noted that the language of Section 59(3) is emphatic, indicating the legislature's anxiety to ensure that regulations are published only after consulting the Mining Boards. This consultation is crucial as the regulations heavily impact the actual working of mines, affecting safety, employment, and operational efficiency.

        The Court acknowledged that emergencies might necessitate the framing of regulations without delay, which is addressed in Section 60 of the Act. Section 60 allows for regulations to be made without previous publication and reference to Mining Boards in cases of apprehended danger or conditions likely to cause danger, provided the regulations do not remain in force for more than two years (later amended to one year).

        The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 59(3) are mandatory, and non-compliance would result in the invalidity of the regulations. However, it was not clear whether the Mining Boards constituted under the Mines Act, 1923, were functioning and consulted when the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, were framed. The Court directed the sub-divisional magistrate to determine whether there was consultation with the Mining Boards under the 1923 Act and if such consultation amounted to sufficient compliance with Section 59. If the magistrate finds non-compliance, the regulations would be invalid, entitling the accused to an acquittal. If there was sufficient compliance, the case should proceed based on the evidence.

        Conclusion:

        The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the validity of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, based on compliance with Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. The criminal proceedings will continue based on the magistrate's findings regarding the consultation with the Mining Boards.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found