TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies Mines Act interpretation: 'And' is disjunctive. Compliance triggered by any condition.</h1> <h3>Joint Director of Mines Safety Versus Tandur & Nayandgi Stone quarries</h3> The Supreme Court held that the High Court misinterpreted the word 'and' in the Mines Act, 1952 proviso as conjunctive instead of disjunctive. Any one ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of the word 'and' in the Mines Act, 1952 proviso.Summary:The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting the word 'and' in the Mines Act, 1952 proviso as conjunctive, when it should be read disjunctively. The case involved an open cast mine where the number of employees exceeded 50, triggering the need for a qualified Manager. The Court clarified that any one of the conditions specified in the proviso would make the mine subject to the Act. The legislative intent is to ensure the safety of mine workers. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.The Court directed the appellant to find a suitable person for appointment as Manager, with the Department responsible for selecting and deputing the individual. The respondents were to pay the appointed Manager's salary and allowances as determined by the Joint Director of Mines Safety. The Court advised the appellant to consider not prosecuting the respondents for their past failure to appoint a qualified Manager under the Mines Act, 1952.Judgment: Appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
