SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Central Coal Fields Ltd., etc., Appellants
Versus
M/s. Bhubaneshwar Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3374-75 of 1984
Decided on 23-8-1984.
 
Advocates appeared
 
Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Sachthey, Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Mr. S. C. Malik and Mr. M. L. Verma, Advoctes with him, for Appellants; Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, for Respondent in C. A. No. 3374/84; Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. N. Goburdhan and D. Goburdhan, Advocates with him, for Respondent in C. A. No. 3375/84.

Advocates:
Anip Sachthey, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, L.N.Sinha, M.L.Verma, R.N.SACH, S.C.Malik Sayeed Uddin, SHANTI BHUSHAN

Headnote:

Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1971 - Section 3 (a) , 2, 4, 10, 21 and 22 - Coking Coal Mines (Statement of Account) Rules, 1972 - Partnership firm - Coking coal - Order of statutory authority - Challenged - Respondent No. 1, a partnership firm, held a coking coal mine known as Tariya Colliery within State management whereof was taken over with effect from along with several other coking coal mines and some coke oven plants - Ordinance was in due course replaced by a statute bearing same title - Then came Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1971 which received Presidential assent but under Section 1, sub-section (2) thereof, statute was deemed to have come into force with effect - Under Nationalisation Act, right, title and interest of owner in mines extinguished and became vested in Central Government with effect - Under Management Act, Custodian carried on management on behalf of owner while under Nationalisation Act ownership was abolished and payment of a sum to owner by way of compensation was contemplated - Whether that stock was liable to be taken into account for purpose of determining amount payable to owner in respect of period when mine was under management of Custodian - Whether Government company which was in management for relevant period on behalf of owner was to pay anything to owner or Government company having spent for owner – Held, Nationalisation Act books had to be balanced with a view to finding out - whether Government company which was in management for relevant period on behalf of owner was to pay anything to owner or Government company having spent for owner was entitled to recover any sum from owner - Therefore, Court accept submission that Nationalisation Act contemplated a balance-sheet according to commercial procedure to be drawn up which necessarily required stock-in-trade to be reflected - Appellants had conceded before High Court and appearing for them before Court accepted position that if extracted coal had been sold before appointed day, owner would have been entitled to price - Mere fact that extracted coal remained in stock at commencement of appointed date can make no difference to position - Expenses were to be set off against sale price of stock to be received at time of disposal - Therefore, stock of coal had to be taken into account for balancing position - Court are sorry to observe that High Court omitted to make a reference to it and are aqually sorry to note that Government companies have failed to do their duty as cast on them by law and driven owner to unnecessary litigation - Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:—Special Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 1, a partnership firm, held a coking coal mine known as Tariya Colliery within the State of Bihar the management whereof was taken over under the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance of 1971 with effect from October 17, 1971, along with several other coking coal mines and some coke oven plants. The ordinance was in due course replaced by a statute bearing the same title (hereinafter referred to as the Management Act). Then came the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1971 (Nationalisation Act for short) which received Presidential assent on August 17, 1982, but under Section 1, sub-section (2) thereof, the statute was deemed to have come into force with effect from May 1, 1972. Under S. 3, sub-s. (a) of the Nationalisation Act, May 1, 1972 was the appointed day. Under the provisions of the Ordinance followed by the Management Act, ownership of the mines was not disturbed but management was taken over. Under the Nationalisation Act, the right, title and interest of the owner in the mines extinguished and became vested in the Central Government with effect from May 1, 1972. Under the Management Act, the Custodian carried on the management on behalf of the owner while under the Nationalisation Act ownership was abolished and payment of a sum to the owner by way of compensation was contemplated. So far as the period between October 17, 1971 and April 30, 1972, when title in the colliery continued to vest in the owner but only management had been taken over under the provisions of the first statute, was concerned, the business was run by the Custodian on account of the owner. Therefore, the Nationalisation Act provided that upon accounts being taken, either the owner was to be paid the surplus or if there had been excess expenditure, the same had to be recovered from the owner.

3. In the instant case there was a stock of 5650 tons of coking coal and 602 tons of soft coke when management was taken over on October 17, 1971 and on April 30, 1972, at the end of which ownership was extinguished, there was a stock of 30,411 tons of coking coal and 956 tons of soft coke. A total expenditure of about eight lac rupees had been incurred for raising the said quantity of coal during the period of management. This stock was not taken into account and credit for it was not given to the owner but the expenses of extraction amounting to Rs. 7,95,071.94 were raised against the owner. The owner laid claim to a sum of Rs. 1,01,755.37 as its entitlement under the Nationalisation Act on the ground that if credit was given to the stock in trade on the basis of the closing balance, it would be entitled to that amount.

4. Claim having been laid for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the owner under the Nationalisation Act, that amount was certified to be recoverable. The owner Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the statutory authority by filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court impleading, inter alia, the Central Coal Fields Ltd. as also M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. two Government companies as respondents. The High Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the owner was entitled to credit for the coal lying in stock when the closing balance was drawn up and accordingly directed the accounts to be recast and payments to be made on the basis of the recast accounts. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution separately for leave to appeal against the said decision of the High Court.

5. We have heard parties at length and detailed written arguments have been furnished by Mr. Lal Narain Sinha on behalf of the two appellants. The main plank of Mr. Sinhas argument against the decision of the High Court is the definition of mine contained in the two statutes. Admittedly, the definition of mine occurring in S. 2 of both the Acts does specifically include all coal in sto

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top