TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Properties Must Prove Mine Use</h1> <h3>Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Versus Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Versus Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. - 2002 (8) SCALE 388 Issues Involved:1. Vesting of properties under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.2. Interpretation of the term 'mine' under Section 3(j)(vi) of the Act.3. Application of the doctrine of user for properties related to mines.4. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Vesting of properties under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972:The judgment discusses the vesting of right, title, and interest of coke oven plants in the Central Government effective from 1st May 1972, which were subsequently transferred to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. The term 'vest' implies the conferment of ownership of properties and immediate and fixed rights of present and future enjoyment. The judgment references the decision in The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust and Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui, etc. v. Union of India & Ors., which elucidate that vesting can have different meanings depending on the context. The Central Government's role as a statutory receiver is highlighted, with duties to manage and administer properties until further vesting in another authority.2. Interpretation of the term 'mine' under Section 3(j)(vi) of the Act:The core issue was whether buildings and structures belonging to the appellant could be termed as a mine under Section 3(j)(vi) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The statutory provision includes 'all lands, buildings, works, adits, levels, plants, machinery and equipment, vehicles, railways, tramways and sidings belonging to or in, or about a mine.' The High Court construed this to mean that there must be a nexus between the property and the mine. The judgment references the case Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madan Lal Agrawal, which dealt with similar provisions under the Act of 1973, emphasizing that properties must be used for the purpose of the mine, whether specific or general.3. Application of the doctrine of user for properties related to mines:The concept of user was central to the case, where the properties in question were claimed to be used for purposes other than coking coal mines. The High Court and the judgment in Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Grewal & Ors. supported the doctrine of user, indicating that properties must be used for the purpose of the mine to be vested under the Act. The lack of factual support for the statutory language in the notices and counter-affidavit was noted, making the case more about factual issues rather than legal ones.4. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:The judgment discusses the scope of intervention under Article 136, which is reserved for cases with serious legal infirmities or wrong legal constructions. The judgment emphasizes that intervention is warranted to avoid injustice and infraction of law. However, in this case, the factual issues did not justify intervention under Article 136, and the appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed as the properties in question were not proven to be used for the purposes of the mine, and thus did not vest under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The judgment reinforces the necessity of factual support for statutory language and limits the scope of intervention under Article 136 to cases with significant legal errors.
TaxTMI 