Advanced Search Results

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the State ...

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 3, 3(6), 5 to 13, 13(2), 14, 15, 15(1), 17A(2), 28, 28(3) and 57; Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Act, 1972; Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 57; Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 27, 27(1), 27(2), 27(5), 54(1), 64 and 64A; Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rule 38A; Mineral Concession Regulations; Metaliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 - Regulation 4

Reported in : [2007(1)JCR25(Jhr)]

petitioners, which deals with the violation of Regulation 4 of the regulations framed under Section 57 of The Mines Act, 1952. Section 57 of The Mines Act, 1952 empowers the Central Government to make regulations for purposes specified in that … Notification No. SC-10-A/99-547/M dated 10th February, 1999 issued by the Mines and Geology Department, allegedly issued under Rules 64 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 framed under Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)

Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Excise

Acts : General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6 and 24; Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 3; Mines Act, 1923 - Sections 29; Mines (Amendment) Act, 1952 - Sections 57 and 58; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10 and 75; Finance Act, 1972 - Sections 64; Arms Act, 1878 - Sections 15

Reported in : 1979CENCUS17D; 1978(2)ELT511(Mad)

present is a case, where the Mines Act, 1923 was repealed and was re-enacted with modifications as the Mines Act, 1952; Section 29 of the 1923 Act empowering the Central Government to make regulations onsis-tent with the Act for specified … Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. By Section. 64(c) of the Finance Act 1972, the Central Excise item No. 18 was amended and a new Tariff item

The Workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Labour and Industrial

of contractor was in violation of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947, and also all provisions of Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules, 1955, framed thereunder. They also pointed out various provisions of bipartite agreement between employees of … placed on communication dated 16.03.1989 for said purpose.11. The provisions of Rule 64 of Mines Rules, 1955, cast no obligation upon the employer to provide … said events have taken place during the pendency of reference proceedings and hence are hit by provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Those developments are, therefore, stated to be irrelevant and insignificant insofar as

M/S. Balaji Marble Mines, Makrana Vs. State (Chief Secretary) and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11059/2011 M/s. Balaji Marble Mines Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9873/2011 Kanaram Burdak Vs. State of Rajasthan … the scope of Rule 12 & 13 of the Rajasthan Partnership Rules 1952, the Division Bench has held that Registrar is not competent to adjudicate … an abortive attempt to unsettle and dwindle the same and in his that pursuit laid an application under Section 64 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1932) before the Registrar

Kana Ram Burdak Vs. State (Chief Secretary) and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11059/2011 M/s. Balaji Marble Mines Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9873/2011 Kanaram Burdak Vs. State of Rajasthan … the scope of Rule 12 & 13 of the Rajasthan Partnership Rules 1952, the Division Bench has held that Registrar is not competent to adjudicate … an abortive attempt to unsettle and dwindle the same and in his that pursuit laid an application under Section 64 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1932) before the Registrar

Tata Steel Limited Through Its Chief Legal and Compliance Mrs Meena La ...

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Land Acquisition

instead Section 3(i) says that the expression ‘mine’ has the same meaning as assigned to it in the Mines Act, 1952. ‘Mine’ as defined by Section 2(1)(j) of Mines Act, 1952 means any excavation where any operation for the … of India.2. In all these writ applications the petitioner Tata Steel Limited, has challenged the vires of Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, praying for the following reliefs:- (i) An appropriate writ, order

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mb Power (madhya Pradesh) Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Electricity

question as to whether the phrase “any one of the Directors” as found in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 could mean “only one of the Directors” or could it be construed to mean “every one of the … Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, per contra, submits that unlike Section 62 read with Sections 61 and 64 of the Electricity Act, under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, the appropriate Commission only “adopts” tariff and

Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631

effect as if enacted in the Act. The Mines Act 1923 was repealed by Section 88 of the Mines Act 1952. The question for consideration was whether the Mines Regulations 1926 framed under Section 29 of the Mines Act

Sisir Kumar Panda and ors. Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14 and 14(2); Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 - Sections 468, 472 and 473

Reported in : 1985(I)OLR535

C. was considering the question whether the offence for failure to furnish return under Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 is a continuing one or not. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, their Lordships discussed as to the … nature for commission of a forest offence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64 (2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant

Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. National Union Wa ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Labour and IndustrialConstitution

Acts : Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Sections 1, 2, 2(1), 3(1), 7, 8, 9, 10, 10(1) and (2), 12, 12(1), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21(4), 23, 24 and 25; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 and 10; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 16, 23, 32, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 43A and 226; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Amendment) Act, 1986; Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 - Sections 5-A; Companies Act, 1956; Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 3; Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 - Sections 3-A; Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 5-A and B; Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956; Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 - S

Reported in : AIR2001SC3527; [2001(91)FLR182]; (2002)1GLR792; JT2001(7)SC268; 2001LabIC3656; (2001)IILLJ1087SC; 2001(5)SCALE626; (2001)7SCC1; 2001(4)SCT1(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC228; 2001DGLS(soft)1084:2001(111)CLR349

to them in Clause (i), Clause (j) and Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Mines Act 1952 (35 of 1952).74. It contains four parts. Under the first part, the head of any office or department