Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
24. The judgment in the case of Chandar Bhushan Misra is on the facts of that case. The facts of the case in hand are much different to those of Chandar Bhushan Misra. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a judgment (Reference Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitna Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. Ors., 2003 2 SCC 111, which has recently been followed in the case of Rajveer Singh Vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal, 2008 AIR (SCW) 5817.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002
He has not at all adverted to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhjai Ambalal Desai (supra) nor has he recorded a finding as to why it is not congenial in the facts and circumstances of the case to deny the release of the seized mooram.
Section 4 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011
Having considered the rival submissions raised by the parties as well as the law on the subject as crystallized in the above quoted judgements, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Magistrate has erred in refusing to entertain the release application on the grounds as mentioned in the order dated 28.2.2020. From the discussions made herein above, it is clear that the offence alleged against the revisionist is compoundable and such power is with the District Magistrate. In spite of the time having been granted to the learned A.G.A., nothing has been brought on record to show the action taken by the D.M. Kaushambi in this regard. However, it may be noted that the Court does not find any legal impediment in compounding the offence complained against the revisionist. Secondly, the power to release the seized mineral, tool, vehicle etc., is with the Court as settled by the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra).
Section 22 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 19 April, 1977
In Smt. Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and another, [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:-
1