Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 627
📌 Paras 2-3.1
The Director of Mines and Geology (appellant) challenged a High Court order that allowed a petition by M/s BMM ISPAT LTD (respondent). The respondent had sought to avoid paying a higher royalty than stipulated in a tender agreement. This situation arose from a Supreme Court order in 2011 that constituted a committee to oversee the sale of existing iron ore stock through e-auctions. The respondent was a successful bidder, and the initial agreement specified a 10% royalty rate. However, a subsequent amendment by the Central Government in 2014 increased the royalty rate for iron ore to 15%.
📌 Para 3
Whether the State can charge a higher royalty than what was stipulated in a tender agreement, owing to a subsequent change in
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial