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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 244

P.B.CHAKRAVARTTI, S.C.LAHIRI
ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COAL BOARD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DIPAK SEN, E.R.Meyer, G.P.KAR

P. CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE controversy in this appeal is as to whether Section 8 (1) (a) of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952, so far us it purports to impose a duty of excise on all coal raised and despatched from collieries in India, is a valid piece of legislation and even if it be valid, whether it applies to so much of the coal raised from the appellant's colliery as is consumed in its own power house. Logically, the second question should come first, because if the section does not apply to the appellant's colliery, it is immaterial to the appellant whether the section is valid or not. I shall, however, deal with the two points in the order in which they were argued.

( 2 ) THE controversy has arisen in the following way: The appellant, the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. , is a large concern, manufacturing aluminium and it has its factory at Jaykaynagar in the district of Burdwan. The plants in the factory are driven by electricity, for the supply of which the factory has its own power house. For feeding the power house, coal is required. The appellant has provided itself with a source for getting the coal by taking a lease of a colliery which is
































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