LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label mining act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mining act. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2013

So far as the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, viz. Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008 is concerned, it mainly challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that by virtue of methodology directed to be employed in the said judgment, the State would suffer substantial loss as the lessee company, viz. Hindustan Zinc Limited would be paying much less royalty than what it is supposed to pay. 3. On the other hand, an appeal has also been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited as it has been aggrieved by the direction issued by the High Court, whereby the amount of royalty has been directed to be re-calculated.=The negligible contents of metal which remains in the mining area by way of tailings, slimes or rejects, which are returned to the mother earth cannot be said to be the part of metal content in the ore produced. “Dumped tailings or rejects may be liable to payment of royalty if only they are sold or consumed”.- whether the details given by the lease holder on the basis of which royalty is calculated is correct. Upon carefully going through the impugned judgment and the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we find that the courts below did not commit any mistake in arriving at the conclusion that the holder of the lease was not liable to pay the amount demanded under the impugned notices because, by virtue of Notification dated 12th September, 2000 read with the relevant Rules, the lease holder is supposed to pay royalty only on the contents of metal in ore produced and not on the metal contained in the tailings, rejects or slimes which had not been taken out of the leased area and which had been dumped into dumping ground of the leased area. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it has been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited as it has been aggrieved by the directions whereby the matter has been ordered to be remitted to the mining engineer for re-computing the royalty payable on lead and zinc contained in the ore produced. The submission on behalf of the appellant-company was to the effect that as the entire concentrate has been taken out of the leased area and as the quantity of concentrate of lead and zinc was very much known, it was not necessary to give such a direction because there is no question with regard to re-computation of royalty on the basis of metal contained in ore produced. We find substance in what has been submitted because the metal concentrate which had been taken out from the leased area is known to the parties and therefore, it is not necessary to have any further details regarding the ore produced by the appellantcompany. 40. We, therefore, quash the afore-stated direction and the appeal filed by the appellant-company is allowed to the above effect with no order as to costs.

›
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1494 OF 2008 State of Rajasthan & O...
Thursday, March 15, 2012

a) Whether the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15th May, 2002, continues to subsist in favour of the Appellants? b) Whether the State Government is obliged to make recommendations for the grant of iron ore mines in

›
                                           REPORTABLE                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                     CIV...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011

M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. till date of its demerger in 2004 and thereafter to M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) obtained a mining lease for limestone from the Government of Maharashtra, as per lease deed dated 12.2.1980. Under the terms of the said lease, the appellant as lessee was required to pay dead rent as per clause V(1) and (2), royalty in terms of clause V(3) and surface rent, water rate and cesses in terms of clauses V(4) of the lease deed. In response to a notice served by the Collector on the appellant demanding payment of surface rent (equal to non-agricultural assessment) and the Zilla Parishad Cess (for short = (i) Whether the appellant is liable to pay ZP Cess? (ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay GP Cess? =In view of the above, we accept the contention of the appellant that it is not liable to pay ZP cess or CP cess to the State Government under the lease deed. It is however made clear that if the said cesses (ZP cess and CP cess) become payable by the appellant by virtue of any amendment to the provisions of the respective enactments under which such cesses are leviable, then the appellant may have to pay the same. Be that as it may.

›
                                                                                    Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME CO...