Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: comparative chart of corresponding sections of 1983 act Court: jharkhand Year: 2009

Feb 04 2009 (HC)

Pawanjay Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Feb-04-2009

Reported in : AIR2009Jhar105; 2009(57)BLJR1437

..... iron ore and manganese ore to the respondent no. 7 under the provisions of section 5(1) and section 11(5) of the m.m.d. & r. act, 1957. the chart containing the comparative merits of each of the applicants was also enclosed with the forwarding letter. correspondences were exchanged by and between the state and the central governments giving the details of ..... such claim, the state government had allowed all the applicants including the petitioner, opportunity of being heard and a comparative chart was prepared on the basis of the criteria as laid down under the provisions of section 11(3) of the act. such exercise was undertaken to enable the petitioner and the other rival claimants to establish their superior claims which, ..... 's representation, vide its letter dated 13.09.2005, alongwith the other informations sought for under a comparative chart specifying the details concerning each of the items as per criteria laid down under the provisions of section 11(3) of the act.learned counsel explains that after going through all the relevant informations including the clarifications submitted by the state ..... grounds and arguments, learned counsel would refer to the comparative chart prepared by the concerned authorities of the state government based on the informations supplied by the individual applicants. learned counsel would explain that undisputedly the respondent no. 7 was the first applicant in terms of section 11(2) of the act, who had a preferential right of consideration over .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2009 (HC)

Brahmi Impex Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jul-17-2009

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2735

..... the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner's case was not recommended as per the provisions of section 11(3) a, b, c, d of the m.m.d.r. act, 1957.it is apparent therefore that though in the first comparative chart, the remarks suggest that the petitioner's application was not considered on account of the pending litigation, but the ..... committee conducted the hearing on 18.01.2008 and heard each of the applicants, including the petitioner on its merits vis--vis the prescribed parameters as laid down under the act and the corresponding rules and upon assessing the superior merit of the respondent no. 8, the committee made its recommendation in favour of the respondent no. 8 under the provisions of ..... information, which the petitioner had already supplied and a comparative examination was made vis--vis, the other applicants. this would only emphasize that in the decision-making process, the concerned authorities of the state government did adhere to the provisions of law as contained both in the m.m.d.r. act and the corresponding rules. the petitioner cannot dispute the authority of ..... section 5(1) of the m.m.d.r. act, 1957 for grant of lease. the proceeding of the committee, the details of which were recorded in annexure-11, filed by the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //