Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
The Sandur Manganese And Iron Ores ... vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2025 cites

Common Cause vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 April, 2016

4.1.2 In the above regard, the following observations from the decision in Common Cause (supra) was pressed into service, "The amendment to Rule 24A made on 18.7.2014, more particularly, the second proviso to sub-rule (6), leaves no room for any doubt, that the automatic extension postulated with reference to the first renewal, would not apply to the second or subsequent renewals. It is therefore necessary to further conclude, that in cases of second and subsequent renewals, the amended Rule 24A(6) would
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 42 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Goa Foundation vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 November, 2013

NC: 2025:KHC:17902-DB WP No. 10766 of 2024 not extend the lease period for a further period of two years, from the date of amendment. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in relation to renewal sought under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act (read with Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules - amended on 18.7.2014), all second renewals which were assumed to be subsisting by State Governments, would expire with effect from the date of the judgment in the Goa Foundation case, i.e., 21.4.2014, and expressly, with effect from 18.7.2014, when the second proviso to Rule 24A(6) provided accordingly. Unless of course, the Government had passed an express order in writing, as mandated under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, extending the subsisting mining lease by a second or subsequent renewal." (Para 16) 4.2 Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Karnataka, on behalf of respondent No.1-Union of India made the following submissions,
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 217 - Full Document
1