These appeals filed by Tata Steel arise out of S. 9016-17/2014 and are directed against a common judgment and order dated 12th March, 2014 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W. Out of the total quantity of cement despatched by all the cement factories in India in 1953-54 the A. There is no dispute that the A. 11542 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Judged in the light of well recognised top Chandigarh law firms principles, there can be no doubt that the Chief Controller of Imports, acting under cls.
Held, (Per SINHA, KAPUR, SARKAR and SUBBA RAO, JJ. It is contended that these rules were, unfortunately, not brought to the notice of the High Court and that the decision rendered by the High Court accepting the law laid down in SAIL is incorrect. The submission is that after the decision in SAIL best Chandigarh advocates the Government of India issued a advocates in Chandigarh notification dated 25th September, 2000 inserting Rule 64B and Rule 64C in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter MCR) and as a result of this, Run-of-Mine (ROM) minerals, after being processed in the leased area are exigible to royalty on the processed mineral.
In this context, it must immediately be noted that the contention of the State of Jharkhand is not that Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR have retrospective effect. A statement made to the police but not reduced to writing, could not be used for any top Chandigarh lawyer purpose, not even for contradiction. It was incorrect to say that all omissions in regard to important features of the incident which were expected to be included in the statement made before the police, should be treated as contradictions.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8330 of 2005 has been filed by Narendra Kumar Tripathi (“the writ petitioner”) employed as legal service in Chandigarh engineer with the Department of Minor Irrigation, Rural Engineering in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A statement to the police could be used under s. 162 of the Code only for the purpose of contradicting a statement in the witness box under the second part of s. 1, Evidence Act, but it could not be used for the purpose of cross-examining the witness under the first part of s.
It was impossible, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to hold that the petitioners, who did not admit having committed the fraud and must be assumed to be innocent, were afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard within the meaning of 410 cl. 1504/2009 it is also clear that as far as Tata Steel is concerned, Washery Grade IV coal that it extracts needs to be beneficiated to make it usable in the steel industry and the controversy is limited to the issue of payment of royalty – whether it is payable on raw or unprocessed or ROM coal at the pit-head or it is payable on processed Steel Grade coal.
That being so, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right in denying that refund. 18683 of 2004 has been filed by the Minor Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh (“the Department”) and SLP (Civil) No. 9940 of 2001 and dated 10th December, 2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
is the biggest amongst Chandigarh law firm the companies in India which manufacture cement. These appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 13th February, 2003 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. The order of cancellation of the licences was, therefore, arbitrary and must be quashed. Unless the particulars were given to them and the documents shown to them it was not possible Chandigarh law firm for them to know if any fraud was at all committed and if so by whom.
307/2004 has been filed by the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) against the same judgment and order dated legal 23rd July, 2002. 10 of the Order to prove their innocence. In both the matters, the question involved is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to count his service as Assistant Engineer from 12th June, 1985, the date of his initial appointment on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, for purposes of seniority or his service will be counted only from 14th December, 1989, the date on which approval to his appointment was given by the State Government under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”) as amended on 7th August, 1989 by the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 (“1989” Rules).
) that the omissions did not amount to contradictions -and that the Sessions judge was right in disallowing cross-examination in respect thereof. 9 and 10 of the Imports Control Order, 1955, performs a quasi-judicial function and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice in cancelling a licence. It owns 15 cement factories best lawyers in Chandigarh at different places in India and 2 in Pakistan. The other set of appeals pertaining to Tata Steel consists of four appeals. Also, the question top advocates in Chandigarh is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund.