Sekarreporter: Key notes [11/01, 07:56] Meta AI: 📝 Key notes from the judgment: – Madras High Court quashed demands for surface compensation raised under Section 72 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. – Demands deemed arbitrary, unilateral, and incorrect in law. – 32 matters disposed of, including 19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions. – Judgment delivered by Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan. – Attachments, if any, to be raised. – No costs imposed.
[11/01, 07:29] Sekarreporter: “The impugned demands, are also, for the above reasons, arbitrary, unilateral and incorrect in law, and we quash the same. Consequently, attachments, if any, will stand raised.
75. In light of the above detailed discussion, the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]”
[11/01, 07:29] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has quashed the impugned demands for surface compensation, deeming them arbitrary, unilateral, and incorrect in law. The court allowed the writ appeals and writ petitions, with no costs imposed. Attachments, if any, are to be raised. The decision was made by Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan [1].
Seems like a significant win for the appellants/petitioners. Want to know more about the implications of this ruling or the specific grounds for quashing the demands? 😊
[11/01, 07:34] Sekarreporter: “COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per :- Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
This common order disposes 32 matters, 19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ
Petitions, nine pertaining to the Principal seat and four pertaining to the Madurai Bench.
2. The Writ Appeals challenge various orders of the Writ Court, the first of which has been passed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others V. Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Ltd. and others . In all the writ petitions, the prayers were either for Writs of Certiorari or Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the demands raised by the respondents under the provisions of Section 72 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short ‘Rules’) in”
[11/01, 07:34] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has delivered a common judgment disposing of 32 matters, including 19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions. The appeals challenged orders of the Writ Court, while the petitions sought Writs of Certiorari or Certiorarified Mandamus against demands raised under Section 72 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, for surface compensation.
The court heard submissions from senior counsel representing the appellants/petitioners, who argued against the demands raised by the respondents. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan, is expected to have significant implications for mineral concession holders in Tamil Nadu.
Would you like to know more about the court’s decision or the specific grounds for challenging the demands?
[11/01, 07:56] Sekarreporter: Key notes
[11/01, 07:56] Meta AI: 📝 Key notes from the judgment:
– Madras High Court quashed demands for surface compensation raised under Section 72 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
– Demands deemed arbitrary, unilateral, and incorrect in law.
– 32 matters disposed of, including 19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions.
– Judgment delivered by Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan.
– Attachments, if any, to be raised.
– No costs imposed.
Want to know more about the implications of this ruling or the specific grounds for quashing the demands? 😊
![Ragavachari: Were there any restrictions on all these things? Court adds, in a lighter vein: Everytime some important leader comes to airport, what happens [11/7, 18:04] Sekarreporter 1: Advocate Raghavachari: We’ll not exceed 100 people when going to temples](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)