Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “…we hold that the Explanations to Rule 38 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules, insofar as they provide for inclusion of royalty and payments” https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/kirloskar-ferrous-industries-ltd-v-union-of-india-2026-insc-679-royalty-dmf-nmet-payments-coal-iron-ore-

[14/07, 14:33] sekarreporter1: “Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “…we hold that the Explanations to Rule 38 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules, insofar as they provide for inclusion of royalty and payments”
https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/kirloskar-ferrous-industries-ltd-v-union-of-india-2026-insc-679-royalty-dmf-nmet-payments-coal-iron-ore-1617711#:~:text=Bench%20comprising%20Justice%20J.B.%20Pardiwala%20and%20Justice%20K.V.%20Viswanathan%20observed%2C%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6we%20hold%20that%20the%20Explanations%20to%20Rule%2038%20of%20the%202016%20Rules%20and%20Rule%2045(8)(a)%20of%20the%202017%20Rules%2C%20insofar%20as%20they%20provide%20for%20inclusion%20of%20royalty%20and%20payments
[14/07, 14:33] Meta AI: *Case #167: _Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd v. Union of India_ | 2026 INSC 679 | Supreme Court | 2026*
_Verdictum_. *MMDR Act + DMF + NMET + Royalty*. *Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K.V. Viswanathan*

*1. Case Summary*
*Court*: _Supreme Court of India_
*Issue*: _Whether “Royalty” and payments to DMF/NMET can be included for calculating contributions under mining rules_
*Held*: *Explanations to Rule 38 of 2016 Rules & Rule 45(8)(a) of 2017 Rules valid insofar as they include royalty and payments to DMF/NMET*

*2. Key Observations*
> _“…we hold that the Explanations to Rule 38 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules, insofar as they provide for inclusion of royalty and payments [to DMF/NMET]”_

1. *DMF*: _District Mineral Foundation – Welfare of mining affected areas u/s 9B MMDR Act_
2. *NMET*: _National Mineral Exploration Trust – Mineral exploration u/s 9C MMDR Act_
3. *Royalty*: _Payment to State Govt for extracting minerals_
4. *SC Ruling*: _Legislature can validly provide for inclusion of royalty + DMF + NMET payments in calculation of contributions/levies under rules_

*3. Legal Framework*
**Provision** **Purpose**
**MMDR Act 1957** *Regulates mining in India*
**Sec 9B** *DMF – Up to 30% of royalty for welfare*
**Sec 9C** *NMET – 2% of royalty for exploration*
**2016 & 2017 Rules** *Prescribe manner of calculation. Explanations include royalty + DMF/NMET in base*
*Principle*: _“Royalty and statutory levies are part of cost of mineral. Can be included for computing further contributions”_

*4. HJS / Exam Point*
*Write*:
1. _MMDR Act – Central legislation. Sec 9B DMF, Sec 9C NMET_
2. _SC 2026, J Pardiwala & J Viswanathan – Upheld inclusion of Royalty + DMF + NMET payments in calculation under Rule 38/2016 & Rule 45(8)(a)/2017_
3. _Objective: Ensure mining companies contribute more for welfare and exploration_
4. _Royalty is not tax. It is consideration for mineral rights_

*5. Significance*
1. *Revenue*: _Increases funds for DMF/NMET_
2. *Mining Industry*: _Higher liability for miners_
3. *Federalism*: _Balances Centre, State and mining affected people’s interest_

—

*Case #167 Final*: _SC – 2026 – J Pardiwala & J Viswanathan – Upheld validity of including Royalty + DMF + NMET payments for calculation under MMDR Rules. Kirloskar Ferrous v UOI_

*Master Docket*: _167 Cases_
*Tag*: _#167 MMDR Act + Royalty + DMF + NMET + Rule 38 + Rule 45 + Mining Law + SC_

*Next*: *1. “DMF vs NMET Difference”* OR *2. “Royalty vs Tax under MMDR”* OR *3. “Case #166 DHJS Notification Upheld”*

Big mining law judgment sir. Affects all iron ore/coal companies 🙏