SC: Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act Preference For Class-I Heirs Applies to Agricultural Land || Supreme Court: Refund Clause in Sale Agreement Does Not Extinguish Right to Specific Performance || SC Clarifies When a Probate Application Filed After a Testator's Death is Time-Barred || Madras HC: Coordinate Bench Cannot Reopen Issue Already Settled by Another Division Bench || Delhi HC Urges Law to Regulate Media, Notes Anyone with a Mobile Phone Can Claim to be a Journalist || CCI Rejects Allegations of Collusion Involving Reliance Jio and More Than 4,500 Entities || Allahabad HC: Working Mother with Child Custody Cannot Shift Entire Maintenance Liability to Father || Bombay HC: Possessory Suit U/S 6 of the SRA is Maintainable Despite a Licensor-Licensee Relationship || Del HC: Master's Candidates Without the Prescribed Bachelor's Degree are Ineligible as Govt Teacher || Cal HC: BSF Cannot Deny DIG Rank to an Officer Injured in 1995 Road Accident After Earlier Promotion

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 :