Back
Supreme Court of India
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., AFTAB ALAM & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Versus
Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited & Others
SLPs(C).Nos. 7366-67 of 2010 with W.P.(C).No. 562 of 2009
Decided On : 20-04-2012
Judgment :
In continuation of our order dated 13-4-2012 (State of A.P. V. Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 213), as far as Category ‘A’ is concerned, the recommendations made by the Central Empowered Committee. In Para 14 of its Report dated 18-4-2012, is accepted with a specific clarification that individual reclamation and rehabilitation report for each mining lease(s) would specify unbroken forest area. Mining which is to be resumed in appropriate cases falling in Category ‘A’, however, shall not extend to unbroken forest areas. Further, we direct the Ministry of Environment and Forests to revisit the statutory clearances earlier granted by it in the light of reclamation and rehabilitation plan.
Sale of iron ore lying at various cancelled stockyards is permitted through e-auction by the Monitoring Committee with the condition that the sale proceeds (sic from sale of iron ore from mines/stockyards) not found to be involved in any illegality will be reimbursed to the respective stockyards.
The Report of the Central Empowered Committee dated 13-3-2012, is accepted in respect of ML No. 2581 of M/s. SMIORE.
The learned counsel appearing in IAs.Nos. 47 and 48 submits that these interlocutory applications be dismissed as not pressed. We order accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
