Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Plakkattu Granite Industries (P) Ltd vs State Of Kerla on 22 February, 2021 cites

State Of Kerala & Ors vs V.R.Kalliyanikutty & Anr on 1 April, 1999

8. There is no substance in the contention of the respondents that the liability to pay price, royalty and other dues in respect of the minerals arises from the date of extraction of the minerals, as the petitioner is not fastened with any liability to pay interest from the date of extraction under Rule 58(2) of the Rules. The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act only provides for a mechanism to recover the money determined as due and the provisions of the said statute does not create any right or liability [See State of Kerala and Others v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 657]. In other words, in the absence of any direction in Ext.P6 notice to pay W.P.(C) No.30510 of 2019 9 interest, interest cannot be realised for the period prior to the notice in terms of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 144 - S V Manohar - Full Document

A.P. State Financial Corpn vs Gar Re-Rolling Mills on 10 February, 1994

In other words, the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised if the exercise of the jurisdiction would confer on the applicant undue advantages/favours and deprive the opposite party benefits which they are legitimately entitled to. Needless to say, in exercise of the said jurisdiction, the High Court cannot do anything inequitable, for those who seek equity must bow to equity [see A. P. State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-rolling Mills and Another, (1994) 2 SCC 647].
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 233 - K Singh - Full Document

Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc on 9 November, 1979

98. From the above cases, it clearly transpires that powers under Articles 226 and 227 are discretionary and equitable and are required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. While granting relief in favour of the applicant, the court must take into account the balancing of interests and equities. It can mould relief considering the facts of the case. It can pass an appropriate order which justice may demand and equities may project. As observed by this Court in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana courts of equity should go much further both to give and refuse relief in furtherance of public interest. Granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of justice, equity and good conscience".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 196 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sanjay on 4 September, 2014

13. I have already indicated in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the manner in which the officers concerned in the Mining and Geology Department have acted in the matter of realising the dues to the Government from the petitioner. Before parting with this judgment, I am constrained to make a few observations regarding the grant of a fresh quarrying licence to the petitioner also. There cannot be any doubt that natural resources constitute public property, and the State is empowered to W.P.(C) No.30510 of 2019 14 distribute the same only by ensuring that the distribution is not detrimental to public interest [See State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (1980) 3 SCR 1338]. It is trite that while distributing the natural resources, the Government must act as a prudent businessman and where the State is simply selling a produce, the State must endeavour to obtain the highest price. No part of the natural resources can be dissipated for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration to the State. Whenever Government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated [See Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1]. I do not think that a prudent business man would grant a quarrying lease to a person from whom substantial amounts running to several crores are due to him, without realizing the dues. As noted, when sizable amounts running to several crores of rupees are due from the petitioner, the officers concerned of the Department have granted a fresh quarrying lease to the petitioner without insisting settlement of the dues to the Government, that too, without the concurrence of the State Government. According to me, even if there is no interdiction in the Rules to renew an existing quarrying lease or grant a fresh quarrying lease in favour of a person from whom amounts are due to the Government and even if W.P.(C) No.30510 of 2019 15 realisation of the dues is interdicted by way of interim orders of the court, the competent authority is not expected to make such grants without insisting payment of the entire dues for the purpose of granting renewal or a fresh grant. It is for the Government to take appropriate measures to prevent such occurrence in future, if necessary, by introducing appropriate amendments to the Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 113 - Cited by 482 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1