SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(MP) 164

G.G.SOHANI, FAIZAN UDDIN, K.M.AGARWAL
M. P. LIME MANUFACTURER ASSOCN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.HIDAYATHULLAH, D.Y.Chandrachud, M.L.JAISWAL, P.C.Naik, S.L.SAXENA

G. G. SOHANI, CJ.

( 1 ) THE order in this case will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 345/88, 323/83, 4051/87, 3298/87, 3361/87, 3562/87, 3777/87, 3803/87, 3810/87, 3881/87, 3882/87, 498/88, 621/88, 694/88, 942/88, 1122/88, 1253/88, 1278/88, 1290/88, 1229/88, 1423/88, 571/88, 573/88, 1885/88, 4031/88, 4107/88, 3105/88, 198/89, 3714/87 and 171/89.

( 2 ) BY these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 (Act No. 1 of 1982) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1987 (Act No. 21 of 1987) imposing cess on land held in connection with mineral rights be declared as ultra vires. The material facts giving rise to these petitions briefly are as follows : (i) The petitioners hold mining leases under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the M. M. R. D. Act. A Mineral Area Development Cess was imposed by the State under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982, on the land held under the mining leases. The validity of that levy was assailed in Misc. Petition No. 410















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top