Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (3.19 seconds)Section 15 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 25 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ashish Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2020
9. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the order dated
01.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8953 of 2022 (Ashish
Pandey v. State of M.P. and others), wherein it was held that
since the petitioner had not excavated any mineral for the last four
years and had not earned any income therefrom, the demand raised
was unreasonable, harsh, and unjustified. However, the facts of the
said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present
case. In the said judgment, it was also held that for the period
2019-2022, there was no subsisting lease. Although the Director,
by order dated 12.01.2022, renewed the lease retrospectively with
effect from 01.01.2019, this Court held that there was no lease in
existence during the period 2019-2022, and therefore, the
petitioner therein was not liable to pay dead rent. Accordingly, the
aforesaid judgment does not assist the case of the present petitioner.
M.V. Subba Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 25 August, 1978
The Rajasthan
High Court in Bal Mukand Arora v. State of
Rajasthan and others AIR 1981 Raj. 95 has also
taken the same view, disagreeing with the view
taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. V.
Subba Rao case.
Laddu Mal And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 26 April, 1965
section (3) of Section 15 and Section 9-A in order
to ascertain the intention of Parliament is
misplaced. Though sub-section (3) was inserted in
Section 15 with retrospective effect by the
Amendment Act of 1972, until it was so inserted it
was not before the courts when they came to
construe the scope of the rule-making power of
the State Governments under Section 15(1) and
even without sub-section (3) being before the
courts, various High Courts have held that the
State Governments' power to charge royalty is to
be found in the rule- making power conferred by
Section 15(1). The Patna High Court in Ladu Mal
v. State of Bihar and others AIR1965 Patna 491,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 29-01-2026
10:51:33
..13..
Banku Bihari Saha vs State Government Of Madhya Pradesh And ... on 3 December, 1968
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7483
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Banku Bihari
Saha v. State Government of M.P. and others.
Shanthi Saroop Sharma And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 20 May, 1968
AIR1969 MP210, the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Shanti Saroop Sharma v. State of Punjab
and others AIR 1969 Punj. and Har.