Category: Mining

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956.

(2024) INSC 440 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. BHARAT PROCESS AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

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.

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,…

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

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…

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

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

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.