Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.55 seconds)
Gvk Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 March, 2017 cites

Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 25 August, 2014

2. The present batch of petitions is by prior allottees of coal blocks which had been cancelled by the Supreme Court by virtue of its judgment dated 25.08.2014 [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Others: 2014 (9) SCC 516] read with its order dated 24.09.2014 [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Others: 2014 (9) SCC 614]. Thereafter, the concerned coal blocks / coal mines were put to auction. The Successful Bidders in the said auctions were to take over the coal mines. However, the prior allottees were to be compensated for the land in relation to the coal mines as also for the mine infrastructure. Section 16, as will be seen later, provides for the quantum of compensation for the land in relation to the coal mines as also for the ‗mine infrastructure'. Rule 14 of the said Rules provides for the manner of determination of compensation to the prior allottees and for the lodging of the registered sale deeds. The plea of the petitioners is that these provisions are ex facie unjust, unfair and unreasonable. They are W.P.(C) No. 973/2015 & Ors Page 8 of 43 arbitrary and result in the petitioners (prior allottees) not receiving fair and just compensation in respect of the land and the mine infrastructure and in the Successful Bidders benefiting at the cost of the prior allottees. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that the said provisions be struck down. It is also their case that the said provisions suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 935 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Rajiv Sarin & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 9 August, 2011

7. In this backdrop, it was submitted that Section 16 of the said Ordinance and Rule 14 of the said Rules were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India because of the non-consideration of the expenditure incurred by the petitioners towards leasehold rights in the lands / surface rights, mine infrastructure and consents and approvals obtained by the petitioners for excavation of coal from the coal blocks. Reliance was placed on Rajeev Sarin and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others: 2011 (8) SCC 708 (paras 72 to 84) and K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka: 2011 (9) SCC 1 (paras 189 and 191). It was submitted that deprivation of property under Article 300-A could only be on payment of compensation which was just, fair and reasonable. It was submitted that under the impugned provisions as W.P.(C) No. 973/2015 & Ors Page 12 of 43 being interpreted by the respondents, fair and just compensation is to be paid to the prior allottees for the following:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 69 - M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996

(1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. A reference was made to the decisions in the cases of State of A.P. and Others v. McDowell & Company and Others: 1996 (3) SCC 709 (para 43) and Kuldeep Nayar v. Union of India: 2006 (7) SCC 1 (para 96). It was submitted that none of the two grounds existed in the present case and, particularly, when the right to property is no longer a fundamental right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 491 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another on 10 December, 1982

21. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners, apart from reiterating, in brief, the submissions earlier made by them, contended that the said Ordinance did not fall under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and does not give effect to Article 39(b). As such, it would not be entitled to the protection under Article 31-C of the Constitution. Furthermore, it was submitted that the respondents had raised the issue of Article 31-C for the first time in their written submissions filed on 21.04.2015. No such plea had been taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondents ought not to be permitted to take up W.P.(C) No. 973/2015 & Ors Page 25 of 43 such a plea and, in any event, the plea was a clear afterthought. It was also submitted that the present case related to the deprivation of property of a prior allottee and its vesting directly in favour of a Successful Bidder at a price which discriminates against the prior allottee and in favour of the Successful Bidder. It was submitted that any legislation which seeks to effectuate such an objective has to be struck down as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the decision in Sanjeev Coke (supra) would not be relevant nor would the other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of their plea under Article 31-C of the Constitution. None of those cases, according to the petitioners, deal with the issue which arises in the present case, that is, of depriving a prior allottee of its property and transferring the same directly to the Successful Bidder at a price which, according to the prior allottees, is discriminatory against them and in favour of the Successful Bidders. It was urged that the transfers in the present petitions were not to give effect to any Directive Principle but was a forcible sale / transfer of property from one private entity to another and clearly was not in furtherance of giving effect to any Directive Principle of State Policy. Therefore, the said W.P.(C) No. 973/2015 & Ors Page 26 of 43 Ordinance and, in particular, the impugned provisions would not enjoy the protection under Article 31-C of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 133 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1