Four important cases are slated to be listed before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court starting October 12..The matters are not listed for final hearing, but only for procedural directions.Below are the six cases that are listed for October 12.Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra Key Question: Interpreting “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of ConstitutionThe case is about the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioners, who are an Association of Property Owners and other individuals, have challenged the validity of this chapter.The issue at hand is whether a constitutional amendment, once struck down, would revive the original or substituted Article. The State government had also amended the MHAD Act in 1986 to add a new section that allows the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) of MHADA to acquire cessed properties with the consent of seventy percent of the residents for restoration purposes.Property Owners’ Association after suffering defeat in the lower court challenged the action in the Bombay High Court and then in the Supreme Court. The case was initially assigned to a three-judge bench in the Supreme Court and thereafter referred to larger benches. The petitioners have contended that property owner’s right to property is a fundamental right that cannot be suspended.Later a seven judges bench observed that they have ‘some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution covers what is privately owned’.A nine-judge bench will, therefore, now lady down the interpretation of the phrase “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of Constitution..Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors Key Question: Whether royalty determined under Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, is in the nature of taxThis case deals with a challenge to the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1992 and the rules framed under the same, which imposed additional cess and taxes on land revenue due from mineral-bearing lands. The top court while referring the case to nine judges stated that there was a conflict between the judgments in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors which was delivered by a bench of five judges and India Cement Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. which was delivered by a seven-judge bench. The main question referred to the nine judges is whether royalty determined under Section 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, is in the nature of tax and whether “taxes on land and buildings” in List II Entry 49 of the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India contemplate a tax directly levied on the land as a unit having definite relationship with the land?.State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh Key Question: Whether the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) should be read restrictively?The term ‘industry’ is defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it includes any organized activity involving co-operation between the employer and his workmen for the production, supply or distribution of goods and services. In 1978, a seven-judge bench in Bangalore Water Supply case held that the term ‘industry’ has to be given a wife interpretation in light of the broad definition under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, every profession regardless of profit motive was included within ‘industry’. However there have been a slew of cases calling for a restrictive interpretation of industry and limiting it to manufacturing units.In 2005, a five-judge Constitution Bench referred the decision in Bangalore Water Supply for reconsideration and noted that the majority judgment in Bangalore Water Supply was not unanimous. .In 2017, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ordered that a nine-judge bench be constituted to hear this 2005 case..State of UP & Ors. v. M/S Lalta Prasad VaishKey Question: Obstacles created by Section 18G of the the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for State to exercise it’s concurrent powersThe case deals with interpretation of Section 18G of the the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Section 18G permits Central government to ensure that certain products related to scheduled industries are distributed fairly and could be availed at affordable rates. It was submitted that in Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. vs. State of UP, a seven-judge bench had failed to address the hurdle created by Section 18G in the State exercising it’s concurrent powers. While referring the matter to a larger bench of more than 7 judges, the top court stated that "if the decision in the Synthetics and Chemicals case with regard to the interpretation of Section 18G of the 1951 Act is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of Entry 33 (a) of List III nugatory or otiose." Some of the questions which the nine-judge bench shall consider are: - Does Section 2 of the Act have any impact on the field covered by Section 18-G of the said Act or Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?- Does Section 18G of the Act fall under Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution or is it covered by Entry 33 of List III?
Four important cases are slated to be listed before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court starting October 12..The matters are not listed for final hearing, but only for procedural directions.Below are the six cases that are listed for October 12.Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra Key Question: Interpreting “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of ConstitutionThe case is about the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioners, who are an Association of Property Owners and other individuals, have challenged the validity of this chapter.The issue at hand is whether a constitutional amendment, once struck down, would revive the original or substituted Article. The State government had also amended the MHAD Act in 1986 to add a new section that allows the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) of MHADA to acquire cessed properties with the consent of seventy percent of the residents for restoration purposes.Property Owners’ Association after suffering defeat in the lower court challenged the action in the Bombay High Court and then in the Supreme Court. The case was initially assigned to a three-judge bench in the Supreme Court and thereafter referred to larger benches. The petitioners have contended that property owner’s right to property is a fundamental right that cannot be suspended.Later a seven judges bench observed that they have ‘some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution covers what is privately owned’.A nine-judge bench will, therefore, now lady down the interpretation of the phrase “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of Constitution..Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors Key Question: Whether royalty determined under Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, is in the nature of taxThis case deals with a challenge to the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1992 and the rules framed under the same, which imposed additional cess and taxes on land revenue due from mineral-bearing lands. The top court while referring the case to nine judges stated that there was a conflict between the judgments in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors which was delivered by a bench of five judges and India Cement Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. which was delivered by a seven-judge bench. The main question referred to the nine judges is whether royalty determined under Section 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, is in the nature of tax and whether “taxes on land and buildings” in List II Entry 49 of the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India contemplate a tax directly levied on the land as a unit having definite relationship with the land?.State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh Key Question: Whether the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) should be read restrictively?The term ‘industry’ is defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it includes any organized activity involving co-operation between the employer and his workmen for the production, supply or distribution of goods and services. In 1978, a seven-judge bench in Bangalore Water Supply case held that the term ‘industry’ has to be given a wife interpretation in light of the broad definition under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, every profession regardless of profit motive was included within ‘industry’. However there have been a slew of cases calling for a restrictive interpretation of industry and limiting it to manufacturing units.In 2005, a five-judge Constitution Bench referred the decision in Bangalore Water Supply for reconsideration and noted that the majority judgment in Bangalore Water Supply was not unanimous. .In 2017, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ordered that a nine-judge bench be constituted to hear this 2005 case..State of UP & Ors. v. M/S Lalta Prasad VaishKey Question: Obstacles created by Section 18G of the the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for State to exercise it’s concurrent powersThe case deals with interpretation of Section 18G of the the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Section 18G permits Central government to ensure that certain products related to scheduled industries are distributed fairly and could be availed at affordable rates. It was submitted that in Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. vs. State of UP, a seven-judge bench had failed to address the hurdle created by Section 18G in the State exercising it’s concurrent powers. While referring the matter to a larger bench of more than 7 judges, the top court stated that "if the decision in the Synthetics and Chemicals case with regard to the interpretation of Section 18G of the 1951 Act is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of Entry 33 (a) of List III nugatory or otiose." Some of the questions which the nine-judge bench shall consider are: - Does Section 2 of the Act have any impact on the field covered by Section 18-G of the said Act or Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?- Does Section 18G of the Act fall under Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution or is it covered by Entry 33 of List III?
