SC: Consumers Cannot Bear Power Plant Depreciation Costs When No Electricity Was Supplied || Supreme Court: Para-Teachers’ Regularisation Depends On Educational Standards Set By States || Bombay High Court: State Cannot Withhold Aid to Child Homes While Supporting Ladki Bahin Yojana || Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Seek to Strike off Wife’s Defence over Unpaid Litigation Costs || Calcutta HC: Bank Accounts Cannot Be Frozen Solely on Complaints Filed Via MHA Cybercrime Portal || J&K&L HC: Unregistered Agreement to Sell Can be Considered For Assessing Possession at Interim Stage || Raj HC: Cybercrime Cases Can't be Quashed Only on Compromise as They Impact Society at Large || Gujarat High Court: Separate Compensation is Payable For Stillborn Child in Railway Accident Case || Delhi HC: Hymen Rupture is Not Required to Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault under the POCSO Act || Delhi HC: Organised Crime Groups Exploit Juveniles, Misuse Juvenile Justice Laws for Serious Crimes

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 :