<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279033</link>
    <description>Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 remained available for second renewal of mining leases, because the Supreme Court&#039;s Goa mining ruling was read as restricting only mining beyond deemed extension and first renewal, not as nullifying the statutory renewal power. Where the State had processed renewal applications, approved mining plans, relied on Indian Bureau of Mines reports, issued enhanced stamp duty demands and accepted payment, its conduct amounted to a clear representation supporting promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. On that basis, completed renewal cases were to proceed to execution of lease deeds, while pending matters still required prompt decision under the statutory framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:34:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=560544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279033</link>
      <description>Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 remained available for second renewal of mining leases, because the Supreme Court&#039;s Goa mining ruling was read as restricting only mining beyond deemed extension and first renewal, not as nullifying the statutory renewal power. Where the State had processed renewal applications, approved mining plans, relied on Indian Bureau of Mines reports, issued enhanced stamp duty demands and accepted payment, its conduct amounted to a clear representation supporting promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. On that basis, completed renewal cases were to proceed to execution of lease deeds, while pending matters still required prompt decision under the statutory framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>