Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)

Sharma & Co. And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 April, 1975

"7. ......In the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, we have no doubt that the word 'mineral' is of sufficient amplitude to include 'brick-earth'. As already observed by us, if the expression 'minor mineral' as defined in the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary sand' there is no earthly reason why 'brick- earth' should not be held to be 'any other mineral' which may be declared as a 'minor mineral'. We do not think it necessary to pursue the matter further except to say that this was the view taken in Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar, Amar Singh Modi Lal v. State of Hariyana and Sharma & Co. v. State of U.P. We do not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of W.B. v. Jagadamba Prasad Singh, that because nobody speaks of 'ordinary earth' as a mineral it is not a minor mineral as defined in the W.P.C. No.4415/13 & conn. Cases -26- Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development"
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Jagadamba Prasad Singh And Ors. on 30 July, 1968

"7. ......In the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, we have no doubt that the word 'mineral' is of sufficient amplitude to include 'brick-earth'. As already observed by us, if the expression 'minor mineral' as defined in the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary sand' there is no earthly reason why 'brick- earth' should not be held to be 'any other mineral' which may be declared as a 'minor mineral'. We do not think it necessary to pursue the matter further except to say that this was the view taken in Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar, Amar Singh Modi Lal v. State of Hariyana and Sharma & Co. v. State of U.P. We do not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of W.B. v. Jagadamba Prasad Singh, that because nobody speaks of 'ordinary earth' as a mineral it is not a minor mineral as defined in the W.P.C. No.4415/13 & conn. Cases -26- Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development"
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

V.P. Pithup1Tchai And Anr vs Special Secretary To The Govt. Of Tamil ... on 30 April, 2003

After exhaustive analysis of the facts and figures, the Bench made it clear in Som Datt Builders' case (2010) 1 SCC 311 that, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in V.P. Pithupitchai's case was a 'substance specific one', wherein the power conferred upon the Central Government to declare a substance as "minor mineral" in exercise of the power under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act, 1957 was not considered and further that, it was a case where the Court was called upon to determine the correctness of the High Court's opinion whether a 'sea shell' was a limeshell within the meaning of Item 28 of the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act, 1957. It was accordingly concluded that, the said decision was not of universal application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 48 - R Pal - Full Document

M/S Som Datt Builders Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2009

27. Considering the factual position involved herein as to the nature of weathered rock/weathered sand, it is not a matter of dispute that, 'weathered rock' which is stated as the raw material for manufacturing 'weathered sand' does not form part W.P.C. No.4415/13 & conn. Cases -28- of the soil/subsoil of the earth. This of course is an item, which is to be raised/won/excavated. It may be true that weathered rock, because of the weathering process suffered already, may not be fit enough to be made use of for constructions purposes. But it denotes one of the different stages of "metamorphosis" in connection with the 'rock/sand formation'. The Parliament having already defined the term "minor mineral" under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act, 1957, with liberty to the Central Government to issue notification so as to include any other item, and the Central Government having issued Ext.R6(a) dated 3.2.2000 notifying "ordinary earth" also as a "minor mineral", in view of the manner of interpretation sought to be adopted by the Apex Court in Banarasi Dass Chadha's case (1978 (4) SCC 11) and as explained in the subsequent decision in Som Datt Builders' case (2010 (1) SCC 311), this Court holds that, 'Weathered rock/Weathered Sand' forms part of "ordinary earth" and is of course a "minor mineral" defined under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 49 - Full Document
1   2 Next