<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (8) TMI 156 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171465</link>
    <description>A subsisting mining lease comprised in an estate vested under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is preserved and continues as a statutory lease from the State for the remaining term; vesting does not extinguish the head lessee&#039;s rights unless the Act expressly so provides. On that basis, the sub-lease royalty stipulation remained binding. The claim for reimbursement of enhanced royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 also failed, as the earlier period had not triggered payment and the contractual and record-based burden for the relevant later period was treated as lying on the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:22:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 156 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171465</link>
      <description>A subsisting mining lease comprised in an estate vested under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is preserved and continues as a statutory lease from the State for the remaining term; vesting does not extinguish the head lessee&#039;s rights unless the Act expressly so provides. On that basis, the sub-lease royalty stipulation remained binding. The claim for reimbursement of enhanced royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 also failed, as the earlier period had not triggered payment and the contractual and record-based burden for the relevant later period was treated as lying on the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>