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>Court upholds validity of Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1986, allowing compensation for coal stock.</h1> <h3>Bhubaneshwar Singh and Bimla Devi Poddar and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Court upheld the validity of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, replacing it with the Act, 1986. The retrospective ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986.2. Retrospective effect of Sub-section (2) in Section 10 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.3. Legislative competence and power to enact retrospective legislation.4. Impact of retrospective legislation on judicial pronouncements.Summary:1. Validity of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986:The petitioners questioned the validity of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, which was later replaced by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. The primary ground was that it purported to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd. Etc. v. Bhubaneswar Singh and Ors.2. Retrospective effect of Sub-section (2) in Section 10 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972:The amendment introduced Sub-section (2) in Section 10 with retrospective effect from 1.5.1972. This sub-section declared that the compensation amount specified in the schedule included the amount for coal in stock or other assets on the date immediately before the appointed day. The Court held that if this sub-section had existed earlier, there would have been no occasion for the High Court or Supreme Court to direct accounting for the stock of coke lying on the date immediately before the appointed day.3. Legislative competence and power to enact retrospective legislation:The Court affirmed that Parliament and State Legislatures have plenary powers to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively, subject to legislative competence and conformity with the Constitution. The retrospective introduction of Sub-section (2) in Section 10 was within legislative competence and did not violate any constitutional provisions.4. Impact of retrospective legislation on judicial pronouncements:The Court examined whether the retrospective amendment nullified the effect of its earlier judgment. It was held that the legislature could render ineffective judicial pronouncements by changing the very basis of the legislation retrospectively. The amendment removed the cause of invalidity pointed out by the Court, thereby validating the previous actions under the amended law. The Court cited several precedents affirming that such legislative actions do not encroach upon judicial power.Conclusion:The writ application was dismissed, and it was held that the respondents were not required to account for the stock of coke lying on the date prior to the appointed day. The compensation awarded was deemed to include the price for such stock. The retrospective amendment effectively nullified the earlier judgment by addressing the legislative defect. Consequently, all related writ petitions and appeals were also dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
