Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria || Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional || Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law || P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe || Delhi HC: Illegal Termination Does Not Automatically Entitle Employee to Reinstatement or Back Wages || Gujarat High Court: Forcing Toddler to Attend Court 6 Hours Weekly For Grandfather Visits is Unjust || Supreme Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Plea, Directs Timely Resolution of Disciplinary Proceedings || Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Review on Solatium Retrospectivity, Bars Reopening Settled Claims || SC: Excise Duty Exemptions Based on Intended Use Must be Construed Liberally For Assessee || Supreme Court: DSC Personnel Eligible For Second Pension; Allows Condonation of Shortfall

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 :