Madras HC: Repeated Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act are Unworkable Without Reversing Merits || Delhi High Court: Unproven Immoral Conduct of a Parent Cannot Influence Child Custody Decisions || Delhi High Court: Counsel Cannot Treat Passovers or Adjournments as an Automatic Right || Delhi HC: Landlord’s Rent Control Act Rights Cannot be Waived by Contract With Tenant || Bom HC: Arbitrator Who Halts Proceedings over Unpaid Revised Fees Effectively Withdraws From Office || SC Holds That if Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, The FIR Cannot Continue For Others || SC Holds That Prior Opportunity to See Accused Can Render Test Identification Proceeding Unreliable || Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits || Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC || J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice

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 :