<?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>2004 (1) TMI 686 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175564</link>
    <description>Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 permits recovery of minerals or, if already disposed of, their price from a person who raised minerals without lawful authority, together with rent, royalty or tax. The provision is compensatory in character and not penal, and the marginal note &quot;Penalties&quot; does not control its plain wording. Where granite blocks were exported under interim protection and the interim orders later ceased to operate, the benefit could not be retained. The principle of restitution applies, so a party cannot keep an advantage obtained only because of a now-vacated interim order. The State&#039;s recovery of the price was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 686 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175564</link>
      <description>Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 permits recovery of minerals or, if already disposed of, their price from a person who raised minerals without lawful authority, together with rent, royalty or tax. The provision is compensatory in character and not penal, and the marginal note &quot;Penalties&quot; does not control its plain wording. Where granite blocks were exported under interim protection and the interim orders later ceased to operate, the benefit could not be retained. The principle of restitution applies, so a party cannot keep an advantage obtained only because of a now-vacated interim order. The State&#039;s recovery of the price was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>