Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 3 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
India Cement Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu Etc on 25 October, 1989
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has, now, again brought similar provisions by taking a recourse to Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. (framed by the Central Government) which is also beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 85. Their Lordship in para 27 of the judgment, observed:
Section 14 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Laxminarayana, Mining Co. And Anr. vs Taluk Development Board And Anr. on 30 March, 1972
"Our attention was drawn to the decision of the division bench judgment of the High Court of Mysore in M/s. Laxminarayan Mining Co., Bangalore v. Taluk Dev. Board, AIR 1972 Mysore 299. There, speaking for the Court, one of us, Venkataramaih, J. of the Mysore High Court, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed that a combined reading of entries 23 and 50 in list-II and entry 54 of list-I establishes that as long as the Parliament does not make any law in exercise of its power under entry 54, the powers of the State Legislature in entries 23 and 50 would be exercisable by the State Legislature. But when once the Parliament makes a declaration by law that it is expedient in the public interest to make regulation of mines and minerals development under the control of the Union, to the extent to which such regulation and development is undertaken by the law made by the Parliament, the power of the State Legislature under entries 23 and 50 of list-II are denuded. There the Court was connected with the Mysore village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. Thus, it was held that it could not, therefore, be said that even after passing of the Central Act, the State Legislature by enacting Section 143 of the Act intended to confer power on the Taluk Board to levy tax on the mining activities carried on by the persons holding mineral concessions. It followed that the levy of tax on mining by the Board as per the impugned notification was unauthorised and liable to be act aside. At P. 306 of the said report, it was held that royalty under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals Act was really a tax.
Orissa Cement Ltd And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Orissa And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 April, 1991
"It is clear from a perusal of the decisions referred to above that the answer to the question before us depends on a proper understanding of the scope or MMRD Act, 1957, and an assessment of the encroachment made by the impugned State Legislation into the field covered by it. Each of the cases referred to above turned on such an appreciation of the respective spheres of the two legislations.