LexINDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. (·
JNDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(AND VICE VERSA)
August 1, 1980
375
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CmNNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
.Coking .Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, sub-s. (1) of s. 4---Whether
a raising co~tractor of a coal mine is an "owner" and· if so, whether the fixed
assets like machinery, planls, equipment and other properties installed 'or brought
. in by such a raising contractor vest in the Central Government-Whether su[,-
sidy receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board established :mder s. 4 of the
Cor:! Mines (Conservation,. Safety and Development) Act, 1952 upto the specified
date from a fund kno.wn as a Conservation and Safety Fund, by such raising
contractor prior to the appointed day can be realised by the Central Govern·
ment by virtue of their powers .under sub-s. (3) of s. 22 of the Nationalisation
Act, to the exclusion of all other persons including such contractor and applkd
under sub-s. (4) of s. 22 towards the. discharge of the liabilities of the coking
coal mine, .which could not be discharged by the appointed day.
·
The appellants by virtue of two agreements with M / s. Balihari Colliery
Co. Pvt. Ltd. and with New Dharamband Colliery Ltd. became the managing
contractor for a period of 20 years of the former and the raising contractor of
the latter; In terms of the said agreements, they installed from time to time
various fixed assets like machinery, plants and equipment and erected stmctures
and raised new roads within. the said collieries. These two collieries were ·taken
over by the Central Government under its management with effect from October
17, 1971, by virtue of the powers vested in it under the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
The appellants aggrieved by the said taking over
filed a writ. petition in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that sub·
s. (!) of s. 4 of the Nationalisation Act does not provide for the acquisition
: of the right, title and i;,terest inasmuch as being mi.sing contrnctors. they were
not covered by the term 'owner' within the meaning of- s. 3(n) of the Nationa·
lisation Act. and, therefore, they were entitled to dismantle and remove the
fixed assets like machinery, plants etc. They also sought t9 recover the amount
of subsidy of about Rs. ,4,50,000 collected by . the Central Government from
the erstwhile Coal Board.
The High Court substantially disallowed the claim of the appellants holding
·that they fall within . the meaning of term 'owner'.
It, however, held that the
amount of sub•idy of Rs. 4,50,000 receivable from the Coal Board by way of
reimbursement towards the cost of sand stowing and hard. mining operati·1ns
carried on by them could not· be treated to. be as an amount due to the
coking coal mine within the meaning of sub-s. (3) of s. 22 and, therefore,
could not be utilised . by the Central Government under ~ub-s. 4 of s. 22
for ·discharge . of the liabilities of the coking coal mine. Hence, the two appeals
one by. the appellants and the other by the Union of. Indi~ .
. Allo~ing the. Union of India's appeal only and dismissing .the Company's
·.appeal,. the Court. ·
B
:C
;
1
D
J
c
D
F
H
''i '.•
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[198ll 1 S.C.R.
HELD : (1) The appellants do fall under the purview of the term "owner"
in s. '3(n) of the Nationalisation Act· read with s. 2 of 'the Mines Act, 1952 I
and any other construction as sought to be placed on the .definition would
frustrate the very object of the legislation and the intention of the Legislature.
{387 F]
Parliament, with due deliberation, in s. 3(n) adopted by incorporation .the
enlarged definition of the "owner" in s. 2(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 to make the
Nationalisation Act all embracing and fully effective.
The definition is wide
enough to include three categories of persons (i) in relation to a mine, the
person who is the immediate proprietor or a Jessee or occupier of mine or any
part thereof, (ii) in the case of a mine the business whereof. is carried on by
. a liquidator or a receiver, such liquidator or receiver, and (iii) in the case of a
mine owned by a company,
0
the business whereof is carried on by a managing
agent, such managing agent. Each is a separate and distinct category of persons
and the concept of ownership does not come in: The insertion of the clause
"but any contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof shal! be
subject to this Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.