Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
SAIL Refractory Company Limited, Rep. By its Chief Operating Officer – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Salem West, Sooramangalam, Salem – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2) |
| 2. court's observations on law and obligations (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by petitioner and respondents (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the records relating to the impugned refusal order bearing No.BK2/1/2025 dated 21.04.2025 passed pursuant to impugned notice impounding Document No.I2/2024 dated 29.03.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to immediately register the Deed of Transfer (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Deed”) dated 16.11.2011 bearing document No.P58/2012 submitted by Petitioner.
2.1. Petitioner, SAIL Refractory Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SAIL”) is a 100% subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited incorporated on 23.08.2011, to take over Salem Refractory Unit of M/s. Burn Standard Company Limited (hereafter referred to as “BSCL”). By virtue of nationalization of Burn & Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company vide Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalization) Act, 1976, all assets and liabilities stood vested with the
The registration authority must refuse registration of any instrument related to state-owned lands unless mandatory consent from the State Government is obtained, reaffirming the legal necessity to a....
The mining lease lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, and any subsequent transfer is void and not enforceable under law.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
The court ruled that additional conditions in mining lease agreements can be imposed without central government approval, as they pertain to third-party claims and do not conflict with the interests ....
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, the importance of providing an opportunity of personal hearing, and the need to rec....
The court found the mining lease transfer application ineligible due to failure to comply with legal requirements, notably the absence of an approved mining plan as mandated by law.
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
