LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus UNITED COLLIERIES LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_..,_.
,
209
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
UNITED COLLIERIES LTD. & ORS.
December 3, 1984.
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S.
VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Coal MineJ (Nationalisation) Act 1973 Section 2 (h)(xll)-Definition of
"Mine"-Whether a staff car of the Technical Advisor to rhe North Chirin1iri
Collieries Limited which was nationalised under section (3)(i} of the Coal Mines
(Nationa/iJation) Act 1973 with effect from May 1, 1973 was or was not covered
by the definition of the tern1 "mine" in section 2(h){xU) and therefore stood
transferred to, and become vested in, the Central Government free from all
eneumbrances.
An Ambassador car No. MHX 3771 was purchased by M/s. Karamchand
Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd .• Delhi in the year 1966 and was transferred
to respondent No. 1 United Collleries Ltd., the owners in relation to the North
Chirimiri Collieries, and it was, therefore, the owner of the said vehicle. On
and from the appointed day i.e. May l, 1973, the right, title and interest of the
owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the schedule stood transferred
to and became vested in the Central Govo:rnment free from all encumbrances
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973'.
Immediately after the nationalisation of the coal mines, the Deputy Custodian
General, Coal Mines Authority Limited, Nagpur addressed a letter dated May
9, 1973 to the Technical Advisor to the North Chirimiri Collieries using the said
staff car to hand over if to the custodian. Since the car was not handed over on
the plea that it was not used by the Technical Advisor exclusively for the North
Chirimiri Collieries but useli by him for looking after the multifarious activities
of th! Thapar Group of Industries which was a composite .:oncern With the busi.
nesse') other than coal mining, and therefore although the car belonged to respon.
dent No. l, the owners of the North Chirimiri Collieries, it was not a staff car
'belonging to the mioe'.~The Managing Director, Western Division, Coal Mines'.
Authority by an order dated August 9, 1983 directed the respondents to hand
over possession of the car failing which they would be liable to prosecution
under the Act. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 and the Technical Advisor
assailed his order by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court purporting to rely
on the decision of this Court in New Satgram Engineering Works&: Anr. v.
Union of India [1980] 4 S.C.C. 570. held that the question as to whether the
staff car spould be treate4 as belonging to the owner of a mine as part of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS·.,
[1985) 2 s.c.R.
mine itself raised disputed questions of fact relating to its user which.would
have to be determined on the basis of evidence. It accordingly discharged
the rule and left the parties to have their rights adjudicated in a civil suit.
Feeling ag11rieved. Union of India preferred the appepl by special leave as the
qu<lltion involved affected a large number of cases.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : Parliament by an enlarged definition of 'mine )in section 2(h)
of the Act has indicated the nature of the properties that vest and the question
whether a particular asset is taken within the sweep of section 2(b) depends on
whether it answers the description given therein. The staff car in question was
uhdoubtedly a fixed asset of tho North Chirimiri Collieries Ltd., the owners in
relation to the said mine, being the staff car of the Technical Advisor, was a
'fixed asset' belonging to the mine. 'Fixed assets' in general comprise house
assets which are held for the purpose of conducting a business, in contradistinc-
tion to those assets which
proprietor they include real estate, building,
machinery etc. The staff car, therefore, fell within the definitio.n of 'mine' as
contained in section 2(h)(xii) and vested in the Central Government under sub ..
section (I) of section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Merely
because the Technical Advisor was putting the staff car to his personal use or
for multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of Industries would not alter
the true legal po!ition since the sub1CQucnt user for a different purpose was
not really germane. [214D·Gl
There is a difference in the language used in section 2(h)(xi) and (xii)
Sub-clause (xiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.