Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Mines Act, 1952

31 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

1988 INSC 25430 August 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra alleging illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie‑Dehradun belt that was harming the ecology and forest cover. Several expert committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Bandyopadhyay) classified the mines into categories A, B

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusM/S. M.M. SURI AND ASSOCIATES (P.) LTD.

1998 INSC 40528 October 1998Dismissed

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that held a 1988 notification extending the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to shops was inapplicable to M.M. Suri & Associates (P) Ltd., a shop with five officers and fewer than twenty workers. The Supreme Court examined w

M/S. DAMODAR MANGALJI AND CO. ETC.versusTHE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

2001 INSC 12527 February 2001Dismissed

The mining company Damodar Mangalji & Co. challenged a 1977 notification issued by the Government of Goa, Daman & Diu under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, arguing that the Act should not apply to mining establishments because the term "mine" should be limited to the ore‑extraction site and the "appropriate G

MAJ. GENL. A.S. GAURAYA & ANR.versusS.N. THAKUR AND ANR.

1986 INSC 9325 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners were accused in a complaint under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default on 6 January 1972, but later restored it on 20 January 1972 upon the complainant's application. The accused argued that the magistrate had becom

SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2001versus-

2004 INSC 20925 March 2004Dismissed

The President referred three questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) concerning whether natural gas (including LNG) falls under the Union List (Entry 53, List I), whether States can legislate on it under Entry 25, List II, and whether Gujarat's Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply and Distribution) Act,

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusMADANLAL AGRAWAL

1996 INSC 134320 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Madan Lal Agrawal sued Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. for eviction of land and buildings he claimed to own adjacent to Victory Colliery. The properties were used as offices and staff quarters for the mine, which had been taken over by the Central Government under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The trial court dis

SHANKAR LALversusHINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS

2022 INSC 44920 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former employee of Hindustan Copper Ltd., challenged the employer’s order that treated his date of birth as 21‑September‑1945 instead of the 21‑September‑1949 recorded in his service book and other documents. The discrepancy affected the calculation of his Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits, wh

HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 132619 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Copper Ltd., a government company engaged in open‑cast mining of copper ore and its subsequent processing into copper concentrate, challenged the levy of electricity duty under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. The Act’s Section 3 (Explanation (b)) defines a “mine” to include premises or machiner

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 27218 December 1986Disposed off

The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra filed a writ petition alleging that illegal limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills and Dehradun area was causing severe ecological damage. The Supreme Court appointed several committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Valdia Expert Committee, Bandopadhyay) to assess safety, env

LANCO ANPARA POWER LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2016 INSC 97318 October 2016Dismissed

Lanco Anpara Power Ltd was constructing a thermal power plant and had obtained registration under the Factories Act. The State authorities issued show‑cause notices under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Buildings and Other Con

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1990 INSC 23217 August 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Three coal companies (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Central Coalfields Ltd. & Coal India Ltd.) claimed ownership of coal slurry that escaped from their washery plants and settled on river beds and raiyati lands. The State of Bihar granted leases to private contractors to collect the slurry withou

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1983 INSC 20316 December 1983Disposed off

The petition, filed by a social welfare organisation, alleged that thousands of migrant workers in stone quarries and crushers in Faridabad were subjected to inhuman conditions, forced labour and bondage, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The Court treated the letter addre

NEW SATGRAM ENGINEERING WORKS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. AND VICE VERSA

1980 INSC 15114 August 1980Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, New Satgram Engineering Works and related properties, challenged the takeover of their engineering unit, bungalow and guest house by the Central Government under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, seeking a mandamus. The High Court declined to decide whether these assets fell within the defini

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEHRADUN & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1985 INSC 4912 March 1985Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard writ petitions filed by Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra challenging the continued operation of numerous limestone quarries in the Dehradun‑Mussoorie area, alleging environmental pollution and ecological damage. The Court examined reports of two expert bodies – the Bhargav Committee and a

M.C. MEHTAversusSTATE OF.TAMIL NADU

1996 INSC 145410 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by M.C. Mehta challenging the employment of children below fourteen in hazardous factories and mines in Sivakasi and elsewhere, alleging violation of the fundamental right under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Court examined the constitutional mandate under

MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 101710 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Manganese Ore India Ltd. challenged the levy of a 40% electricity duty on its ferro‑manganese plant, arguing that the plant’s activities constitute manufacturing, not "processing" as defined in Explanation (b) of Part B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. The State contended that the plant fell within the

P. SIVASWAMYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1988 INSC 21610 August 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition filed by P. Sivaswamy after a social organisation’s letter alleged widespread bonded labour in stone quarries of Andhra Pradesh. The Court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh and the concerned states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Orissa to identify, release

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.versusM/S. BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

1995 INSC 36410 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had held the electricity duty payable by Mis. Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for power consumed at its limestone mine premises should be calculated at the lower rate under Item (2) of the Table to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh E

UNION OF INDIAversusSH. AB. SHAH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6629 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India filed a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 alleging that Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. and its officials violated conditions 3 and 6 of the permission to split pillars with hydraulic sand stowing. The trial court and the High Court acquitted the respondents, holding that the alleged breach wa

JOINT DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETYversusTANDUR & NAYANDGI STONE QUARRIES (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 978 April 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Joint Director of Mines Safety issued a notice under Sections 17 and 22 of the Mines Act, 1952, requiring Tandur & Nayandgj Stone Quarries (P) Ltd. to appoint a qualified manager after an inspection revealed that the open‑cast mine employed more than 50 persons in a day. The quarry filed a writ petition, and the An

INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1980 INSC 1497 August 1980Case Partly allowed

Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and another company were managing/raising contractors of two coking coal mines under long‑term agreements that required them to install machinery and other plant. The mines were taken over by the Central Government under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The contractors cl

BIRA KISHORE NAIKversusCOAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

1986 INSC 1117 May 1986Dismissed

The petition filed by B.K. Naik and 700 workmen sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to declare that Natundihi Pahariabera Colliery had vested in it and to treat the petitioners as its employees with back wages under Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The Court examined whet

TARA PRASAD SINGH ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1980 INSC 1067 May 1980Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a group of writ petitions challenging the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976, which terminated existing coal mining leases and barred private persons from carrying out coal mining operations. The petitioners, lessees of coal and composite (coal‑fireclay) mines, argued that the a

PEOPLES RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE (PRASAR) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 5826 August 2024

The Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (PRASAR), a Delhi‑based NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief for the widespread occurrence of silicosis among workers in mining, construction, stone‑cutting and sand‑blasting industries. The petition alleged violations of fundamental rights under Artic

G.N. VERMAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2014 INSC 1736 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, G.N. Verma, the Chief General Manager of Karkata Colliery, was charged under s.72‑B of the Mines Act, 1952 for contravening a prohibitory order that led to a fatal accident. The complaint alleged that he was a "deemed Agent" of the mine, but it contained no specific allegation that he acted on behalf of

PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 8303 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Promoters and Builders Association of Pune and the Nuclear Power Corporation excavated ordinary earth – the former for building foundations and the latter for widening a sea‑water intake channel – and were penalised under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for allegedly extracting a minor mine

STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.

2019 INSC 7213 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) orders that banned rat‑hole coal mining in Meghalaya, directed the State to deposit Rs 100 crore for environmental restoration, and held that all coal extracted after May 2016 vested in the State. The Court held that the NGT

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M.P.

2006 INSC 4811 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. operated an electrical and mechanical workshop at Korba to repair mining equipment for adjacent coal mines. The Central Government had declared the workshop a "mine" under Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952. The assessee claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 63/9

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search