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

2006 Supreme(MP) 181

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ABHAY M. NAIK, J.
Taramatl Agrawal
Versus
State of M. P.
Misc. Petn. 2074 Of 1994
Decided On : Feb 02,2006

Advocates Appeared:
R.S.JAISWAL, MANOJ KUSHAWAHA, P.N.DUBEY

A breach of contract occurred due to the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations.

Headnote:

Breach of Contract - Contract Act, Section 73 - The court referred to Section 73 of the Contract Act, which provides for the measure of damages in case of breach of contract. The court interpreted this section to determine the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to provide services. The defendant failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the terms of the contract and the actions of the parties. It found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a breach of contract had occurred due to the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations.

Result: The court awarded damages to the plaintiff to compensate for the breach of contract.

Judgment

( 1. ) This petition relates to refusal of renewal of lease for major minerals for a period of 20 years prayed for by the petitioner, in respect of mining lease granted to her.

( 2. ) Brief facts relevant to the petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of mines and minerals. She was granted a mining lease by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for extraction of dolomite and soap stone as major minerals over an area of 4.178 Hectares situated in village Keolari, Tahsil Gotegaon. District Narsinghpur for a period of 5 years from 3/12/1984 to 2/12/1989. It is contended by the petitioner that during the continuation of the mining lease, she established her own industry for manufacturing of marble chips, dolomite powder, marble sheets, tile size minor and finished marble in the name of M/s. Tara Minerals. According to the petitioner, the minerals extracted from the subject mine were being used in her own aforesaid industry. The petitioner applied for renewal of mining lease on 21-11-1989 under Rule 24-A of Mineral Concession Rules 1960, for a period of 20 years. It is stated that the State Government vide order dated 21-2-1992, contained in Annexure-D granted renewal of the said lease merely for a period of 5 years. This order is under challenge on the ground that the same is non-speaking and contrary to Rule 26 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. A revision petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 11/4/1994 vide Annexure-F.

( 3. ) Respondents submitted its return and denied the claim of the petitioner. It is stated in the return that the grant of renewal is a discretion which has been rightly exercised by the authorities. It is further stated that no renewal could be made for a period of 20 years and the impugned orders do not call for any interference.

( 4. ) Shri R. S. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel made a submission that the impugned order contained in Annexure-D is illegal being in contravention of Rule 24-B and Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. He further submitted that the rejection of renewal is without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and is violative of Rule 26 (supra).

( 5. ) Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General contended that the application for renewal contained in Annexure-C was for a period of 20 years, which itself was bad in law. He submitted that no industry was established at the time of grant of mining lease and subsequent establishment of an industry and subsequent consumption of major minerals extracted from the subject mine in the industry owned by the petitioner herself, will not enable the petitioner to avail Rule 24-B of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960. According to the learned Dy. Advocate General, the renewal could have been at the most for a period of 10 years. However, he urged that the power of renewal being a matter of discretion was rightly exercised and the impugned orders contained in Annexures D and F do not call for any interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, he stated that the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961.

( 6. ) Shri R. S. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel in reply stated that the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 are not applicable in the present case because the mining lease relates to major minerals.

( 7. ) Thus, the following submissions have been made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

(i) In view of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, the mining lease ought to have been renewed for two periods each not exceeding 10 years. Accordingly, the renewal ought to have been made for a period of 20 years. (ii) The application of the petitioner submitted for renewal of mining lease under Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concessions Rules 1960, ought to have been granted for 10 years because Rule 24-B of the said rules makes it obligatory when a pe














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 Back to top