STATE OF BIHAR Vs. S K ROY
LAWS(SC)-1960-4-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on April 25,1960

STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
VERSUS
S.K.ROY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GUPTA TRADING CO VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-1985-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-6-3] [REFERRED 4.]
INDIAN AIRLINES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-49] [RELIED ON]
SHAW WALLACE and CO LTD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1983-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF TELUGURAOPALEM VS. KAKULESWARASWAMIVARI TEMPLE [LAWS(APH)-1997-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
VALLEY REFRACTORIES PVT LTD VS. K S GAREWAL [LAWS(CAL)-1978-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
THUNGABHADRA STEEL PRODUCTS LTD VS. SUPDT OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(KAR)-1991-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
BALLYGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY VS. SUSMITA BASU [LAWS(CAL)-2000-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
H AND R JOHNSON INDIA LTD VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF EX AND CUS [LAWS(KAR)-2002-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
ROOPCHAND RAGHAVJI PHANDE VS. ABHYANKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1969-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANAN JANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
K A JAMBHULKAR VS. MANGALA [LAWS(BOM)-1988-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
M SALIM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1999-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1992-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
U P JAL NIGAM VS. DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-128] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL NEELKAMAL VS. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX AND THE [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHAL K SHAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(BOM)-1975-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIBAGH CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2005-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMANICKAM M VS. MANAGEMENT OF STATE FARM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-722] [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. DHAN SAI SRIVAS [LAWS(CHH)-2009-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
SMALL SCALE BEE-HIVE HARD COKE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1987-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
BALASHRAM SOCIETY VS. PURAN INDORIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
P.K.HANEEFA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
L.J.BHATTHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
M RAJAMANICKAM VS. MANAGEMENT OF STATE FARM COR, MELCHENGAM WEST [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-777] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU SWEETS AND BISCUITS VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(SC)-1998-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. A PARTHIBAN [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RATAN LAL ARORA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. JAI BIR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD VS. STATE OF UTTARKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2011-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-240] [REFERRED TO]
NOLA JONATHAN RANBHISE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-608] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GOBIND PRASAD LATH VS. SHRI PAUL OSWAL [LAWS(P&H)-1975-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., KANPUR [LAWS(CE)-2011-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-618] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS. VS. CST, MUMBAI-I AND ORS. [LAWS(CE)-2015-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. KIRORI MAL [LAWS(ALL)-1972-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. DEY & CO AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1982-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1974-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
SOMAIYA ORGANOCHEMICALS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II, BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-177] [REFERRED]
INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. CALCUTTA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE [LAWS(CAL)-1999-11-13] [REFERRED]
NARENDRA SINGH BHATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-5-98] [REFERRED]
ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND 20 OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-162] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI VS. KNIGHT FRANK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-348] [REFERRED TO]
BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-50] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.)The question of law presented for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent - S. K. Roy - is the 'owner of a coal mine' within the meaning of S. 2 (b) and 2 (e) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter called the 'Act'.
(2.)The respondent was prosecuted under para 70 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter called the 'Scheme') for violation of Cls. (a), (d) and (f) of paragraph 70 read with paragraphs 33-A, 38, 42 and 69-A of the scheme. An Inspector appointed under the Act filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that he was the owner of the Bhowra Coke Plant and that he had contravened certain provisions of the Scheme. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to pay the contribution for the Provident Fund, both employer's and employees' from April, 1960 to November, 1960 and had failed to submit returns in Form "H" with corresponding declaration in Form "A" and the statement in Form 'P' as provided under the Regulations. The respondent was held guilty by the trying Magistrate and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and, in default, to undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment under paragraph 70 (a). The respondent went in appeal to the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. The respondent filed a Revision Application in the Patna High Court which allowed the Revision Application and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent holding that the Coke Plant owned by the respondent was not a Coal Mine within the meaning of the Scheme and that the coke plant was not subject to the provisions of the Scheme and the respondent was not the owner of the mine within the meaning of the Act and the Scheme.
(3.)The facts found or admitted in this case are:(1) The Bhowra Coke Plant originally belonged to the Bhowra Group of collieries owned by the Eastern Coal Company, but subsequently in or about the years 1945 to 1947 the Coke Plant was transferred by sale to the respondent., (2) The group of Bhowra Collieries was subsequently sold to the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Limited., (3) The respondent is the owner of the Coke Plant and the lessee of the land on which it stands on payment of certain royalty by way of the ground rent for the land, the lessor, at the relevant time, being the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Limited owning the coal mine and coal field area, where the Bhowra coal Mines are and the Coke Plant is situated., (4) The Coke Plant is not only adjacent to the coal mine but is also situated on the surface land, which forms part of the coal fields which and beneath which the coal mine is worked by the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., (5) The respondent does not carry on the work of any coal mine therein, he does not excavate any coal by carrying on any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal., (6) The Coke Plant is a bye-product coke plant in which hard coke as well as some other bye-products are manufactured.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.