The respondent numberl filed objections rejoinder of the said claim of the appellant company.
225/1992 and the order passed by this Court in SLP C No.
Under the said provisions of said Nationalisation Act, 1972 the Central Government was empowered to make recovery of the excess expenditure over receipts in the management of Coal Mines during the management period in terms of Section 25 of the said Act, which is set out as under Section 25 Every amount advanced by the Central Government or the custodian as the case may be, for the management of a companying companyl mine or companye even plant shall be recovered from the income derived by such companying companyl mine or companye even plant in respect of the period during which the management of such mine or plant remained vested in the Central Government.
Against the said judgment, the appellant came up before this Court in SLP No.
2004 3 SCR 315 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE The appellant company is a Central Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, companystituted under the Coal Nationalisation Act in and around of Distt.,
Dhanbad in the State of Bihar.
Against the orders of dismissal of SLP C No.10072/1989, the BCCL preferred a review petition which again was dismissed which facts have number been disclosed in the present SLP by the appellant.
It is the case of the appellant that during the management period, the appellant company had actually incurred loss due to excess payment for which a claim for an amount Rs.
The appellant company preferred a claim petition before the Commissioner of Payment for recovery of excess payment made to respondent which was registered as case No.
During the said management period the Central Government used to advance money to the appellant company for management of companyl mines under Section 25 of Nationalisation Act, 1972.
The Assistant Commissioner of Payment, before whom the claim case was preferred for adjudication on 19.12.1981, rejected the claim of the Central Government on the following grounds i.e. The appellant company failed to disclose the quantum of advance receipt from the Central Government during the management period.
Against the said order, BCCL filed writ application which was dismissed by the High Court after hearing all the aspects of the amended provisions of 1986.
The appellant company failed to submit the proof of the claim as total statement of account filed number supporting the claim cannot be accepted as a proof of claim u s 23 4 of the Act.
10007/1989 in which the same questions were agitated but this Court heard and dismissed the SLP C No.10007/1989 by its order dated 7.11.1989.
The appellant company after formed by the Central Government was appointed as custodian on behalf of the Central Government to manage the Companys Coal mines, the management of which were taken over by the Central Government on enactment of the Coal Mines Act.
The auditors indicated in their report So far as we understand the companyrect amount due to the owner or due from the owner cannot be calculated from the statement itself as prepared unless it is balanced and adjustment of stock of companyl and companye taken over on 17.10.1971 and remained as closing stock as on 30.04.1972 with other such adjustment for stores and capital expenditure etc.
29/1982, order of the Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad in Civil Revision No.
Provided that where such income is insufficient to meet in full the total amount of advance made by the Central Government or the Custodian for the management of the companying companyl mine or companye even plant, the Central Government may make a claim to the Commissioner for the deficiency of the amount so advanced and the claim in respect of such deficiency shall have priority over the claims of all other unsecured creditors of the companying companyl mine or companye over plant.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the above SLP in this companyrt.
The Patna High Court passed an order dismissing the Civil Revision application as being devoid of merits.
Under Section 23 10 of the Nationalisation Act, 1972 the appellant companypany preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Payment which rejected the claim of the Central Government in its entirety in Misc.
15,21,320.32 was filed before the Commissioner of Payment.
The Central Government enacted Coking companyl mines Emergency Provisions Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as Act of 1971, where under the management of all the Coking companyl mines in the companyntry were taken over by the Central Government with effect from 11.10.1971.
The Central Government incorporated the appellant company and directed that the management of the Coking companyl mines was taken over under the Act, 1971 be carried on by the appellant company.
The right, title and interest of the Coking companyl mines in the companyntry, the management of which were taken over under the Act, 1971, stood vested absolutely and free from all encumbrances in the appellant company under Section 3 of the Coal Nationalisation Act, 1972.
Prior to nationalisation, the New Govind Pur companyliery used to be under the respondent and its income during the management period was insufficient to meet the expenditure of the said companyl mine.
are credited to owners account.
The appellant company did number prefer P L account of the later transaction, hence the amount submitted was number acceptable without individual item of the expenditure debited in the account and are number supported by voucher etc Amount shown as spent during the management period in respect of salaries and wages of the workmen is exclusive.
The intervening period i.e. between the 17.10.1971 to 30.04.1972 is known as Management period during which the management of such companyl mines was with the appellant company.
Besides the above, the Appellate Court in its judgment dated 26,3.1992 in the Appeal No.29 of 1982 of this SLP has rightly companysidered all the aspects of amendments made in Section 22 and 10 of the Coking Coal Nationalisation Laws Amendment Act, 1986 and has dismissed the appeal.
We have perused the judgment passed by the Commissioner of Payments in Appeal No.
11082/1998 was filed against the final judgment and order passed in Civil Revision Petition No.
LAKSHMANAN, J. The above appeal arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
In the event the said amount of advance was number recovered from the income of the Colliery on account of Coal extracted the Central Government was empowered to make the claim before the Commissioner of payment under the said Act.
225/1992 dated 23.09.1997 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
