Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 2006

Sri H.G. Rangangoud S/O Late H.R. ... vs Ministry Of Coal And Mines, Department ... on 14 August, 2007

• Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd v. Union of India 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 91 • Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 709 • Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd v. Union of India • Indian Charge Chrome Ltd v. Union of India • Pallava Granite Industries (India) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India • Indian Charge Chrome Ltd v. Union of India
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - D V Kumar - Full Document

Srilakshmi Yerra, Ias vs The State Of Telangana on 8 November, 2022

20. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation that is levelled against the petitioner is that she intentionally omitted the word "captive mining" in the G.Os issued and thereby, facilitated M/s OMCPL to do illegal mining. Learned counsel contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases between Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka1, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Another2 and Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Another Vs. Union of India3 has categorically held that restrictive clause such as "captive mining" is not feasible and the same cannot be in the interest of mineral development. Learned counsel also submitted that though the word "captive mining" was incorporated in MM(D&R) Act, 2015, the same was deleted by the MM(D&R) Amendment Act, 2021.
Telangana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Maruti vs The on 16 June, 2008

In the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd.(supra), the Apex Court held that power under Section 17-A(2) of the State Government to reserve an area for undertaking mining operation through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled by it, since it is not limited for the purpose of conservation but it confers powers for reservation also and reconsideration of earlier decision of the State Government to grant mining lease to private party and subsequently in favour of the State Mining Corporation, judicial review in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being a policy decision is not available. In paras 26 and 27 of the above decision, the Apex Court has observed as under :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next