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

1978 Supreme(SC) 340

A.P.SEN, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Bharat Coking Coal LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala – Respondent


V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.

(1) THE short question that falls for decision is as to whether a coke oven which is the subject-matter of this case is a coke oven plant as defined in S. 3(b) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is also another question as to whether the plaintiff-respondent 1 has retained with himself the ownership of the coke oven by reserving its ownership in him in sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant-respondent 2.

(2) WE are not going into the details of the facts because at the end of the arguments we have found a broad consensus between the parties to dispose of the matter by a short order.

(3) THE crucial facts, necessary for appreciation of the order we make, are : the plaintiff was once the owner of a coal mine and also of a coal coke oven. He transferred the coal mine to another company and granted a lease of the coke oven to the same vendee. All this took place in 1967. Years later, under the Act above referred to, coal mines were nationalised and there was a separate provision therein for nationalisation of coke oven plants. While the colliery was nationalised b

















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top