Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 453 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 21 November, 1960

State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004

It is no longer in dispute that for the purpose of determining the nature of tax, the measure with reference to which a tax is calculated is a relevant factor although not conclusive. (See R.R. Engineering Co. v. Zilla Parishad Bareilly (1983) SCC 330, Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Bombay Tyre International Ltd. v. Union of India, Buxa Doors Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) at 218-219 para 10 and 11] In Byramjea Jejibhoy v. Province of Bombay reported in [I.L.R. (1940) F.C.] it is stated :
Supreme Court of India Cites 258 - Cited by 433 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

B. Agarwal Stone Product Limited ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 20 July, 2007

11. On the other banc Mr Setalvad, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the Central Act covered the entre field of mineral development, that being the "extent" which Parliament had declared by law that it was expedient that the Union should assume control, In this connection he relied most strongly on the terms of Section 18(1) which laid a duty upon the Central Government "to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India" and "for the purpose the central government may by notification, make such/rules as it deems fit." If the entire field bf mineral development was taken over, that would include the provisions of amenities to workmen employed in the mines which was necessary m order to stimulate and maintain the working of the mines. The test which he suggested was whether if under the power conferred by Section 18(1) of the Central Act, the central government has made rules providing for the amenities provisions was made by the Orissa Act and if the central government had imposed a fee to defray the expense of the provision of these amenities, would such rules be held to be ultra-vires of the Central Government and this particularly when taken in conjunction with the matters or which rules could be made under Section 13 to which reference has already been made. We consider there is considerable force in this submission of learned Counsel for the respondent, and this would require very detailed and careful scrutiny. We are, however, relieved from this task of detailed examination and discussion of this matter because we consider that it is concluded by a decision of this Court in Hingir. Rampur. Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa....
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M.P. Lime Manufacturers' Association, ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 5 May, 1989

In (The Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of Orissa) (AIR 1961 SC 459) (supra) the majority judgment did not deal with the question as to what was meant by the expression 'tax on mineral rights' in view of the fact that it was held in the majority judgment that the impost in that case was fees relatable to Entry 23 in List II. Wanchoo J., in his minority judgment, has dealt with the question as to the scope of Entry 50, a matter not dealt with by the majority judgment, as follows (at p. 479 of AIR) :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 12 - Faizanuddin - Full Document

Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012

In Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. (supra), the Constitution Bench was concerned with the question of legality of the cess under the Orissa Mining Ares Development Fund Act, 1952. One of the grounds canvassed was that the said legislation was bad in law for being in conflict with the previous Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, which was also a Central Act. It was contended that the central legislation was referable to Entry No.54 of the Union List from the Seventh Schedule. It occupied the field and therefore the state legislation which was referable to Entry No.53 was beyond the competence of the state legislature. The Court found that the areas covered by the two acts were substantially the same. However, the 1948 Act was a pre-constitution act and the relevant provisions of the constitution were held to be prospective. The Court therefore, held that unless the declaration under Section 2 of the 1948 Act was made after the Constitution came into force, it will not satisfy the requirement of Entry No.54. The cess and the Orissa Act were therefore not held to be bad in law. What this Court observed in Para 23 in this behalf is relevant for our purpose…………….
Supreme Court of India Cites 176 - Cited by 272 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Corporation Of Calcutta And Another vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964

It is, therefore, not as if powers or duties are not cast on the Corporation to be discharged for which the fee to be charged under s. 548 (2) would be a quid pro quo. The placing of an activity, industrial or commercial, under regulation and control is no doubt done in furtherance of public interest, but so are most of the activities of public bodies. Nevertheless the supervision, inspection and regulation is from a long term point of view considered to be and is in the interest of the industry or the activity itself. To say that to enable a fee strictly so called to be levied, an immediate advantage measurable in terms of money should be conferred on the payer, is to take too narrow a view of the concept of a fee. We do not consider that the decisions of this Court in the Endowment cases lay down such a proposition or compel us to adopt this construction. On the other hand the Orissa Endowments Act and the Bombay Public Trusts Act cases, as also the Orissa Mining Area Development Fund case support a broader view of what constitutes service to the fee-payer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 462 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... on 24 January, 2002

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, no doubt argued with vehemence that the principle enunciated in Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Orissa & Ors. (1961) 2 SCR 537, Belsund Sugar (1970) 2 SCR 100 and State of Orissa vs. M.A. Tulloch & Co. (1964) 4 SCR 461, should equally apply to the case in hand while interpreting the scope and extent of the legislative competence of the Parliament under Entry 52 of List I, but we do not think it necessary to apply the ratio in the aforesaid three cases, inasmuch as in all those cases the Court was considering the competing power of the State legislature under Entry 23 of List II and the power of the Central legislature under Entry 54 of List I. Both the Entries are on the subject 'Regulation of Mines and Minerals Development'. Entry 23 of List 2 itself is subject to the provisions of List I with respect to the Regulation and Development under control of the Union, and necessarily therefore, when Union takes over the control of the Mines and Minerals Development by legislation under Entry 54 of List I the State Legislature would be denuded to make any law in relation to the Mines and Minerals Development under Entry 23 of List II. But in the case in hand, we are concerned with the legislation made by the Parliament under Entry 52 of List I which is the Tobacco Board Act and the legislation made by the State legislature under Entry 28 or any other ancillary Entry like Entry 14 or Entry 27 of List II, namely the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act. In such a case the focus for consideration of the Court would be as to what is the scope and content of Entry 52 of List I and once it is held that the expression 'industry' cannot be given any restricted meaning and the law enacted by the Parliament, the Tobacco Board Act, is held to be intra vires then the State legislation, namely, the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, so far as it deals with the commodity tobacco will go out of the general sweep of all agricultural produce notified under the State Act, as the provisions in respect thereof have been made by the Central legislation and by application of Article 246 of the Constitution the Central Act would prevail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 131 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Ors vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Ors on 24 April, 1995

This Court reached the conclusion that the Central Act 67 of 1957 contained the requisite Parliamentary declaration in section 2 of the Act to occupy the entire field of legislation covered under Entry 54 of List I, and since the aforesaid Central Act covered the same field as the State Act of 1952 in regard to mines and mineral development, the earlier decision in Hingir Rampur Coal Company v. State of Orissa & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 549, con- cluded the matter and the State legislature was denuded of its powers to enact any law on the subject.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next