Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Mining

Mining Tenders & Contracts

Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (as amended by Mineral (Auction) Amendment Rules, 2017) – Rule 9(10), Rule 9(11) and Rule 9(12) – The State Government is expected to be aware of the commercial worth of the natural resources being tendered or auctioned, as well as their potential future earning capacity – Consequently, the statutory regulations outline a bid cum e-auction process that involves not only shortlisting technically qualified bidders but also evaluating specific bids to ensure they meet eligibility criteria for participation in the e-auction – The rules incorporate various safeguards to guarantee transparency and objectivity throughout the bidding process.

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Constitution Mining

HELD the bidder was advised to inspect and satisfy itself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process. As to what would be the effect of that clause on the relief claimed by the original petitioner is a matter which requires consideration. But there appears no discussion in that regard in the orders impugned. That apart, there is no determination of the area, if any, which falls in the disputed territory i.e., within the State of M.P. There is also no discussion on the plea of the appellants that the amount of which refund was sought was far in excess of the amount paid by the original petitioner – Remanded

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR SINGH @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala…

Corporate Mining

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 15 – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – Rules 4(10) and 7(3) – When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a Government land evaporates on its own – An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute

Aug 6, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC — Respondent ( Before : A.S Bopanna and M.M Sundresh,…

You missed

Constitution Election Laws

EVM and VVPAT – Reliability – The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process – The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted – Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVPAT slips to voters, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts, citing concerns over EVM transparency and voter confidence – The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the EVMs’ success in ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections, highlighting technological safeguards against tampering and the benefits over paper ballots – The Court upheld the current EVM and VVPAT system, dismissing the petitions and suggesting improvements for transparency without disrupting the ongoing electoral process – The Court relied on past precedents, the ECI’s robust procedures, and the absence of cogent material evidence against EVMs to reject the petitions – The judgment referenced constitutional provisions, electoral laws, and previous rulings to support the ECI’s position and the current electoral practices – The Supreme Court concluded that the EVMs and VVPAT systems are reliable, and the petitions were dismissed based on the lack of substantial evidence against the current electoral process.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304 and 34 – Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, citing unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence – The Court’s reasoning focused on the credibility of the key witnesses and the absence of corroborative material to support the prosecution’s case – The legal reasoning included the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ not being applicable in Indian jurisprudence – The conclusion was that the appellant deserved acquittal due to the benefit of doubt – The judicial opinion emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity in determining the truth.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I P C

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 22(3) – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 43D – The case involves the State of West Bengal appealing against a High Court judgment that quashed UAPA proceedings against the respondent due to jurisdiction issues – The Court reasoned that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act since the State had not constituted a Special Court – The Court discussed the modified application of Section 167 CrPC under Section 43D of UAPA and the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA. – The Supreme Court concluded that the City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order adding UAPA offences and permitted the continuation of the trial.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Tenders & Contracts

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the principles of delay and latches in judicial proceedings – The Court reasoned that the writ petitioner’s delay in asserting rights and acquiescence to the Corporation’s actions warranted dismissal of the writ petition – The Court cited precedents stating that delay defeats equity and that the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant – The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches, with no order as to costs.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw