D. A. DESAI, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
Western Coalfields LTD. : Bharat Aluminium Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Special Area Development Authority, Korba – Respondent
JUDGMENT
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :— These appeals by special leave involve the question of the legality of the demand for property-tax made by respondent 1 on the appellant Companies. Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1979 filed by the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. arises out of Misc. Petition No. 555 of 1977 filed by it in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Respondent 1 is the Special Area Development Authority, Korba, District Bilaspur, M. P. respondent 2 is its Chairman and respondent 3 is the State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the three appeals raise similar questions, we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1979 only. Civil Appeals Nos. 1025 and 1026 of 1978 are by Western Coalfields Ltd.
2. The appellant. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., is a Government, company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the entire share capital being owned by the Government of India. Respondent 1, the Special Area Development Authority for the Korba Special Area, is constituted under S. 65 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. (23 of 1973), referred to hereinafter as the Act of 1973. That Act was passed by the M. P. Legislature in order "to make provision
Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampatha Chetty
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. of India
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar
H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor
Baijnath Kedia v. State of Bihar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.