NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports || Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC || SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation || SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job || NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights || NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation || Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation || Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute' || Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices || Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear

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 :