Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shapers Construction Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Shapers Construction Ltd. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 21, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047253

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shapers Construction Ltd.

Advocate Shri. Akhil Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....court has also been considered in the case of keti construction limited versus state of m.p.and others 2007 (3) mpht 433 wherein the division bench of this court after analyzing the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid cases held that no payment of royalty by such contractor is required not any deduction from the amount payable to writ petition no.587/2013 2 the contractor, towards the royalty for such minot minerals is permissible in law. further considering the law laid-down in certain cases, in w.p.no.20298/2011 shyam babu sonkar versus state of m.p.& others.this court has passed an order on 10.12.2011 in similar circumstances. the similar view has been expressed by this court in w.p.no.356/2013, decided on 18.01.2013. we accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the order impugned and all consequential action taken pursuance to the said order. the amount withheld or deducted by the respondents towards the royalty for the minot minerals be paid to the petitioner. on making an application, if any amount towards the royalty is deducted from any earlier bills of the petitioner, the same be refunded to the petitioner after due consideration of the application within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order. the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. there shall be no order as to costs. (s.a.bobde) (k.k.trivedi) chief justice judge skc

Full Judgment

WRIT PETITION No.587/201”

21. 01.2013 Shri Akhil Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

Issue notice of this writ petition.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.

Advocate, waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

Heard finally.

It is not in dispute that the claim made in the present case is squarely covered by various decisions rendered by this Court.

This Court in the cases of M.P.Contractors Sangh, Indore and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.1987 JLJ 743.in the case of M.P.Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam versus Abrar Construction Company and otheRs.2005 Arb.

W.L.J.379 (M.P.) and Prestige G.S.Sole versus M.P.Rural Development Corporation, 2004 (4) MPLJ 17 has categorically held that the payment of royalty is not to be made by the contractor on such minot minerals which the contractor purchases from the traders and if no mining is done for the said purposes by the contractor.

The law laid down by this Court has also been considered in the case of Keti Construction Limited versus State of M.P.and others 2007 (3) MPHT 433 wherein the Division Bench of this Court after analyzing the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases held that no payment of royalty by such contractor is required not any deduction from the amount payable to WRIT PETITION No.587/2013 2 the contractor, towards the royalty for such minot minerals is permissible in law.

Further considering the law laid-down in certain cases, in W.P.No.20298/2011 Shyam Babu Sonkar versus State of M.P.& otheRs.this Court has passed an order on 10.12.2011 in similar circumstances.

The similar view has been expressed by this Court in W.P.No.356/2013, decided on 18.01.2013.

We accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the order impugned and all consequential action taken pursuance to the said order.

The amount withheld or deducted by the respondents towards the royalty for the minot minerals be paid to the petitioner.

On making an application, if any amount towards the royalty is deducted from any earlier bills of the petitioner, the same be refunded to the petitioner after due consideration of the application within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge Skc

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial