Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the mines and minerals development and regulation amendment act 2015 Year: 2004

Jan 15 2004 (SC)

The State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201

..... object:while enacting the 1957 act, it was stated:"amending act 15 of 1958:-in view of its importance as basic fuel and theposition it occupies in the country's economy, coal has always been treateddifferently from other minerals. it is in recognition of this that no ruleshave been framed so far under section 7 of the mines and minerals(regulation and development) act, 1948, in regard to modification ..... of theterms and conditions of mining leases ..... andproduction act, 1976 ( both as amended by the bengal taxation lawsamendment act, 1992) has been put in issue, as has been subjected tochallenge by the coal mine owners and the tea estate owners disputing thelevy of cess ailegediy on coal and tea. the grounds of challenge, brieflystated, are three in number: firstly, that brick-earth is a minor mineralto which the mines and minerals development and regulation act, 1957 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2004 (HC)

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Industries D ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-11-2004

Reported in : (2004)4MLJ418

..... the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (1-a) of section 15 of the mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 (central act 67 of 1957), the governor of tamil nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the tamil nadu minor mineral concession rules, 1959: - 2. the amendment hereby made shall come into force on the 2nd day of october, 2003. amendmentin the ..... itself. even if it is permissible, sections 17 and 17a of the act empower the state government or the central government to reserve any area not covered by prospecting or mining leases, which are in operation, and that in the process of regulating the mineral development, section 18 empowers the central government to take measures for protection of environment by ..... 2) and (3) of section 4a of the act makes the said aspect clear. it may be apt to extract the sub-sections.4a. termination of prospecting licences or mining leases - (1) **. (2) where the state government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention ..... no.(iii) - frustration of contractfrustration is recognized by the common law under section 56 of the indian contract act. that need not be considered as the special law i.e. mines and mineral (regulation and development) act, 1957, which is the current and special act covering the instant cases, itself provides for premature termination as mentioned above.18. in view of what is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2004 (SC)

National Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-05-2004

Reported in : [2004(4)JCR30(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC172; 2004(5)SCALE345; (2004)6SCC281

..... lessee from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the second schedule in respect of that mineral.(2a) the holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) amendment act, 1972, shall not be liable to pay any royalty in respect of any coal consumed by a workman engaged in ..... a colliery provided that such consumption by the workman does not exceed one- third of a tonne per month.(3) the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, amend the second schedule ..... the appellant, has brought to our notice a very significant amendment made in the mineral concession rules, 1960. the mineral concession rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the rules, for short) have been framed by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 13 of the mines and minerals regulation and development act, 1957. rules 64-b and 64-c have been ..... introduced therein by gsr 743(e) dated 25.9.2000 which read as under : '64-b. charging of royalty in case of minerals subjected to processing: _ (1) in case processing of run-of-mine mineral is carried out within the leased area .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2004 (HC)

Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-27-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj330; RLW2004(4)Raj2718; 2004(3)WLC703

..... any person aggrieved with such grant.18. the foundation of this controversy stems from the amendment made in section 6 of the mmrd act, 1957. section 6 was substituted by mines and minerals (regulation & development) (amendment) act, 1972 ordaining that no person shall acquire in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals one or more prospecting licences covering a total area of 10 sq. kms. significantly, the ..... amendment did not make any provision to affect the existing leases whether one or more in favour ..... of any person in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2004 (HC)

Satyendra Kumar Tripathi and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. Etc.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2005All147

..... of article 15 of the constitution of india. further, impugned rule 9(2) (3) embodies an unreasonable classification having no rationale relation or nexus with the objects of the mines & minerals (regulation & development) act, 1957 and, hence, is violative of article 14 of die constitution of india.ii. the impugned rules is in the nature of unauthorized subordinate legislation. the power to make ..... the development regulation and exploitation of the mineral wealth of minor minerals, therefore, there is no violation of any of the principle laid down either in d. k. trivedi's, case or the provisions of the 1957 act. another fact which is very significant is that d. k. trivedi's case was rendered with section 15 on the statute book in its un-amended form ..... applying heydon's principle no such restricted interpretation can be given after the amendment in section 15 of the 1957 act. the apex court found that the state government enjoins very wide powers to frame rules in respect of the exploitation regulation usage and other such factors pertaining to minor minerals. the apex. court has ruled that in fact the parliament itself ..... 9-a and 53-a, as indicated in the full bench decision referred to hereinabove, shall be removed and it was also indicated therein that the rules shall be further amended in the following manner :-'(i)(a) the government decided that the first preference shall be given to various corporations, institutions of state, (excluding u.p. forest corporation limited) .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 2004 (HC)

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited and ors. Vs. the Stat ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-24-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3519

..... out of entry 24, list ii. similarly, in state of haryana v. chanan mal,. : [1976]3scr688 , while upholding the constitutional validity of the haryana minerals (vesting of rights) act, 1973, after noticing the declaration made in section 2 of the mines & minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957, ('mines and minerals act' for short) as envisaged by entry 54, list i it was held: 'moreover, power to acquire for purposes of ..... minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957 and section 9 thereof. section 9(3) of the act in terms states that royalties payable under the 2nd schedule of the act shall not be enhanced more than once during a period of 4 years. it is, therefore, a clear bar on the state legislature taxing royalty so as to effect amend 2nd schedule of the central act. in the premises ..... , therefore, a clear bar on the state legislature taxing royalty so as to infact amend second schedule of the central act. as seen earlier in paragraph 32 of the report in india cement case, it has been clearly mentioned that in view of the express provisions of mines and minerals act, 1957, entry 50 cannot be of any assistance to sustain such legislation by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 2004 (HC)

Praveen Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : May-21-2004

Reported in : [2004(4)JCR354(Jhr)]

..... state.viii. decorative, dimensional, building and ornamental stones.such other minerals not specified above subject to provisions of the mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 and other related enactments.'2. it is to be noted that the clause relating to other minerals not specified, was specifically made subject to the provisions of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957 and other related enactments. the broad framework of the ..... not in consonance with the provisions of the coal mines nationalisation act, 1973 and the policy of the central government. neither the jharkhand state mineral development corporation nor the joint venture company can do coal mining without a valid mining lease. the central government has to be approached in terms of section 5(1) of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act. 1957 and without the previous approval as contemplated ..... by the jsmdc in its third supplementary counter affidavit when it points out that a bill has been introduced in that regard. so long as the coal mines nationalisation (amendment) bill, 2000 is not an act of parliament, no right can flow from the contemplated bill. therefore, it is clear that the joint venture agreement to the extent it permits respondent no. 7 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2004 (HC)

Awadh Kishore Sahay Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Feb-17-2004

Reported in : 2004(1)BLJR700; [2004(2)JCR74(Jhr)]

..... abandoned slurry accumulated on his land. the land of the petitioner has been rendered useless. the central government has not framed rules under section 18 of the mines & minerals (regulation & development) act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the act), therefore the petitioner can deal with the slurry in the manner he likes. the slurry is causing air & water pollution also.5. petitioner further stated that ..... from the river bed or from any other land.24. in view of the above discussion, we hold that the slurry which escapes from the appellants' washeries is mineral and its regulation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government. we further hold that in view of the parliamentary declaration made by section 2 of the ..... land or river is reasonably connected with the 'conservation of mineral.' section 18(2)(k) which expressly confers power on the central government to regulate disposal or discharge of waste of a mine makes the parliamentary declaration apparent that the state legislature is not competent to regulate waste discharge of a coal mine. mere absence of any rule framed by the central government ..... 18 as amended by the amending act 37 of 1986 reads as under :'18(1) it shall be the duty of the central government to take such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and systematic development of minerals in india and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mine operations and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2004 (HC)

Shree Durga Organisation and anr. and Jay Shankar Construction and anr ...

Court : Patna

Decided on : Apr-07-2004

..... the auction purchaser. in other words, the auction amount is besides the royalty amount to be realised pursuant to section 15 of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957.10. as prayed by mr. singh, learned special p.p. appearing for the respondents, with consent, put up these matters again under the same heading retaining their position on ..... zeology, has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is stated that the mining lease of stone shall be granted/settled by way of auction under the amended rule 9-a of the bihar minor mineral concession rules, 1972 which came in force with effect from 23rd march, 2001. it is further stated that the period of lease settled under ..... both these writ petitions, the matter in issue is much dependent upon the approach of the state authorities.'9. this court is quite conscious of the fact that the bihar mines and minerals (amendment) rules, 2001, the validity of which was challenged the finally by virtue of interim order passed by the apex court, is in force despite pendency of the matter before ..... the privilege by virtue of settlement in their favour under the rules. rule 9-a of the bihar minor mineral concession (amendment) rules, 2001 provides that. notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the government may by notification in official gazette direct that any mineral may be leased out or settled by public auction/tender in the manner prescribed in rule 52'. rule 52 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2004 (HC)

Maruti Tea Industries Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Oct-15-2004

..... observed.16. the primary question which fell for consideration in quarry stone association (supra) was whether the delegation of power to the state government under section 15 of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957, was unfettered to render it invalid. while answering the question in the negative in the contextual facts, the apex court also took note of the contention assailing ..... the requirement of notice as above, as a corollary we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the impugned resolution also suffers from the vice of non-publication of the amendment effected thereby.24. the appellant is admittedly a consumer under the board and the clauses in the terms and conditions of supply of supply relating to compensation for malpractice ..... be answered is whether the requirement of prior notice as prescribed by clause 27(ii) of the terms and conditions of supply is mandatory so much so that any amendment without complying with the said requirement would render it incurably invalid. the answer evidently lies in the correct interpretation of clause 27(ii) in the context of the powers ..... . the learned standing counsel argued that on a proper interpretation of clause 27(ii), the requirement of prior notice cannot be construed to be mandatory and, therefore, the impugned amendment and the consequential assessment bill are inassailable. he relied on the following decisions of the apex court in hc suman and anr. v. rehabilitation employee' co-operative house building .....

Tag this Judgment!

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