Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Pallavi-Maa-GC-(JV) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(Surepalli Nanda, J.) :
Heard Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.P.Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.
PRAYER:
2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:
Contractual obligations limit liability for additional charges imposed after the agreement date, protecting the contractor's rights under Article 19(1)(g).
Contractors are liable to pay royalties only upon extraction of minerals, not based on purchasing, and may not be compelled to produce certificates without proper liability.
Demand notices must adhere to principles of natural justice and proper procedural requirements; violations necessitate annulment and remand for reconsideration.
The issuance of a demand notice without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating its annulment and remand for proper inquiry.
The court ruled that DMF contributions are mandatory from auction participants engaged in mining operations, interpreting 'royalty' as the auction bid price within the MMRD Act's definition.
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
