SC: Absence of Independent Witnesses is Not Fatal if Injured Eyewitness Testimony is Sterling || Supreme Court: Prosthetic Limb Costs Must Be Compensated To Restore Victims’ Dignity || Supreme Court: Probate Can be Revoked For Non-Impleadment of Parties and Suppression of Facts || SC: Plaint Cannot be Rejected For Valuation or Court Fee Defects Without Chance to Rectify || SC Rules Government Grants Act Overrides Rent Law, Sets Aside Eviction Proceeding Against Union Govt || SC: Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction in Boundary Dispute Between Maharashtra Panchayat & Municipality || Allahabad HC: Two Criminal Cases Insufficient to Label a Person as 'Goonda' and Harm Reputation || Bom HC: Sprinkling Mustard Without Ill Intent Before a House is Not an Offence under Black Magic Act || J&K&L HC: Preventive Detention Invalid When Based on Speculative Fear of Election Disturbance || Bombay High Court: POSH Act Penalises False Complaints by Women But Not Those Who Instigate Them

Tata Steel Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Jharkhand) (17 Sep 2015)

High Court upholds payments demanded by Government for mining leases

MANU/JH/1113/2015

Commercial

Holding that renewal of mining leases was subject to fulfillment of conditions of approval, the Court rejected Petitioners’ petitions against monies demanded by the government. It reiterated that the revenue earned was part and parcel of the development of the State and any restraint on it would profoundly affect the interest of the public at large. The Petitioners had accepted renewal of their leases aware of the payments required, and had failed to establish a case that the same were egregious. The Court directed Tata Steel to furnish payments in three instalments, with the last due in December, 2015.

Tags : MINING LEASE CONDITIONS INSTALMENT

Share :