Back
PRASANNA B. VARALE, M. G. S. KAMAL
MSPL Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common context of writ petitions. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of each petitioner's claims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioners argue for entitlement of fc transfer. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 7) |
| 5. respondent's justification for denying fc transfer. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's observations on representations made. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. background of relevant court orders and mining regulations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 8. legal framework under mmrd act concerning fc transfer. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. discussion on validity of fc transfer conditions. (Para 26 , 30) |
| 10. final decisions on orders issued. (Para 34) |
| 11. final order directing fc transfer to petitioners. (Para 37 , 38) |
ORDER :
1. Since the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are common, they are taken up and heard for common disposal.
2. Petitioners in W.P. No. 14760/2022 and W.P. No. 14795/2022 are common and are raising common contentions as under:
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
