Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.40 seconds)
Kamakshya Narainsingh vs Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. on 27 October, 1949 cites

Mt. Siraj Fatima And Ors. vs Mahmood Ali And Ors. on 27 February, 1932

This information from Mr. MacGregor, Mr. Iron. side wanted through Cunningham of his office and his nephew who were expected to see Mr. MacGregor in a few days. This sentence has been utilized by Mr. Das for the appellant Raja as supporting his suggestions that Mr. MacGregor, though functioning as the Manager of Court of Wards, was really in the camp of the Company. This aspect of the controversy will be noticed hereafter. To this letter, Mr. MacGregor sent a reply (Ex. 125 (K), dated the 22nd of March 1913) suggesting to the Company that, in continuation of the original letter, he might write another one withdrawing their application for exemption from the minimum royalty, and pressing for the extension clause only. As a result of the correspondence referred to above and a personal interview, apparently between Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Cunnigham, a revised proposal was made by the letter EX. 125 (L) dated 4th April 1916. In this letter, the Company suggested (1) that the prospecting and developing period be definitely fixed as for twelve years; (2) that the Company should have the option of extending the prospecting period for a further period of twelve years without any obligation to take up any fixed area during the extended period; (3) that, at the end of twenty four years, if the Company took on lease not less than twenty thousand bighas, they should have a further extension for twelve years with a guarantee to take up a further area of ten-thousand bighas; and (4) that, with regard to minimum royalty, the terms of the present licence should hold good in respect of ten thousand bighas but that minium royalty in respect of any additional areas taken should not be payable until transport facilities for despatch of coal from mines were available. On the receipt of the revised proposals of the Company as aforesaid, Mr. MacGregor put up the matter before the Deputy Commissioner, expressing his own opinion against extension beyond twenty-four years from the date of the original licence as also against the proposal to forego minimum royalty on the second ten-thousand bighas to be taken during the extended period. Mr. Lister, the Deputy Commissioner, by his note dated 21st April, 1916 (EX. p-5), adhered to his view previously expressed that twenty four years was enough, and that he was opposed to any further extension beyond 1939. He also expressed himself to the effect that, in view of the fact that the Company had withdrawn the proposal for the postponement of the payment of the minimum royalty, the matter might be recongi. dered in a light favourable to the Company. By their letter (EX. H (1) ), dated the 3rd May 1916, the Company further elucidated their proposals of 4th of April by indicating that they will be liable to pay salami at the original rate of five rupees per bigha for any additional area taken, besides the two-thousand bighas covered by the original licence, but adding that no minimum royalty will be payable on such additional areas as may be taken in the extended period until railway transport facilities were available. The company further informed the authorities of the Court of Wards that the results of the survey of northern portion of Karanpura Coal Fields by their geologists were ' most disappointing," and that the previously published records in respect of the coal area had been proved to be most inaccurate. This statement was made with a view to urging strongly the necessity of the proposed extension at the Company's option for the second and the third period of twelve years, On receipt of this letter, Mr. Lister forwarded to the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division a long letter (Ex. h), dated 21st June 1916 on the proposal of the Company for the alterations aforesaid in the original licence. In this letter Mr. Lister observed that in his view, extension for twenty four years, that is, until 1939 would be adequate, and that the extension for thirty six years, asked for, was not necessary. But in para. 6 of the letter, which contains his recommendations, it would appear that be was prepared even to grant a third period of twele years and also agreeable to postpone the payment of minimum royalty on any additional areas besides ten thousand bighas to be taken in the first twelve years, but no such concession to be given to them in the third period of twelve years. It may be added that Mr. Lister proceeded on the assumption that the Company will have to invest a very large amount of capital for developing the collieries and building the necessary railway. He also dealt with the quastion of payment of minimum royalty under the impression that it was a sanction against procrastination in the development of the collieries on the part of the Company. He also made calculations' of the investments so far made by the company on the coal areas prospected by them under the original licence. He ended his letter by observing that he was making those recommendations in "the interests of the estate and of the public". Exhibit 130 (AX) is the letter dated 26th June 1916, from the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, recommending the Company's proposals for alteration of the original licence in the same terms as the Deputy Commissioner had done. But there are certain observations in this letter to which serious objection has been taken on behalf of the appellant Raja. The first is that there is a suggestion that the Company might give up the concession already granted to them, if the alterations desired by them were not accepted. Mr. Das has vehemently argued that there is no foundation for such a suggestion, and that, as a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the Company ever even thought of surrendering the licence. The second objection raised relates to the remark that the geological examination of the northern portion of the Karanpura Coal Fields had proved disappointing. It was contended on behalf of the Raja that this statement is not based on facts, and that there is no evidence in support of such a statement except the statement already referred to in the letter EX. H (1) by the Company to the Manager, Ramgarh Wards Estate, which it is contended, cannot be evidence except of the fact that such a contention was raised. It was also objected that the authorities of the Court of Wards made prominent reference to the interest of the public which it is contended, is not a matter relevant to be taken into account but the interest of the ward and the advantage of the property. On 3rd July 1916, the officiating Secretary to the Board of Revenue wrote back to the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division, with reference to the previous correspondence, already adverted to. This is a very important letter in so far as it has been claimed that this was the sanction of the Board of Revenue to the alteration suggested by the Company in the original licence. The relevant portion of this letter is in these terms:
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next