Mines - Judgment Search Results

Maps Mines and Minerals Limited Through Its Manager Puneet Kumar Modi ...

Court: Jharkhand

RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 5006 of 2013 with W. P. (C) No. 4927 of 2015 … Maps Mines and Minerals Ltd. East Singhbhum ... …Petitioner (in both cases) -V e r s u s- 1. The

Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. Mi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR204; [2002(95)FLR1127]; (2003)ILLJ660Bom

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners, a Trade Union, seek a writ of mandamus directing the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. to pay wages to its workmen at the regional workshop at...

Lakshminarayana Mining Company Vs. Director of Mines Safety Bellary Re ...

Court: Karnataka

mine and adjoining mine belongs to M/s Chowgule & Company, there-ore the provisions under Regulation 111(2) of Mettaliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 are attracted. You are hereby advised not to work in the disputed area i.e.. the area

Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. Vs. Alhambra-shumway Mines

Court: US Supreme Court

ALHAMBRA GOLD MINE CORP. v. ALHAMBRA-SHUMWAY MINES - 356 U.S. 583 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court ALHAMBRA GOLD MINE CORP. v. ALHAMBRA-SHUMWAY MINES, 356 U.S. 583

Kennedy Mining Co. Vs. Argonaut Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Where the contention is that the title to ore taken from a mine depends upon whether the mine was patented under the Act of July 26, 1866, or the Act of

St. Louis Mining and Milling Co. Vs. Montana Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

such veins as others own and have a right to pursue. As said by Lindley (1 Lindley on Mines, 2d ed. § 71): "In other words, under the old law, he located the lode. Under the new,

Clipper Mining Co. Vs. Eli Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

standing to maintain an adverse suit against lode applications. In support of this is cited 2 Lindley on Mines, section 721, in which the author says: "Where an application for a patent to a lode within the

Montana Mining Co. Vs. St. Louis Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

to which was in dispute between the grantor and grantee (owners of adjoining claims), together with all the mineral therein and all the dips, spurs, angles, etc., were construed as not simply locating a boundary between the

Mammoth Mining Co. Vs. Grand Central Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

For the character of the country where the question arises, we quote from the judgment under review: "The mines are found in a lime belt which covers about two square miles, and is the great producing area

Stewart Mining Co. Vs. Ontario Mining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

direction of the dip." And it is further said that the definition has been approved in Lindley on Mines, because, as therein expressed, it "involves the elements of terminal edge, and downward course therefrom." We may accept