MTW European Type Trapezium Mill
Input size:30-50mm
Capacity: 3-50t/h
LM Vertical Roller Mill
Input size:38-65mm
Capacity: 13-70t/h
Raymond Mill
Input size:20-30mm
Capacity: 0.8-9.5t/h
Sand powder vertical mill
Input size:30-55mm
Capacity: 30-900t/h
LUM series superfine vertical roller grinding mill
Input size:10-20mm
Capacity: 5-18t/h
MW Micro Powder Mill
Input size:≤20mm
Capacity: 0.5-12t/h
LM Vertical Slag Mill
Input size:38-65mm
Capacity: 7-100t/h
LM Vertical Coal Mill
Input size:≤50mm
Capacity: 5-100t/h
TGM Trapezium Mill
Input size:25-40mm
Capacity: 3-36t/h
MB5X Pendulum Roller Grinding Mill
Input size:25-55mm
Capacity: 4-100t/h
Straight-Through Centrifugal Mill
Input size:30-40mm
Capacity: 15-45t/h
Court judgment case of mining rights grinding machinery dispute
SD Mining Syndicate v Nyevera and 3 Others (16 of 2022)
2022年1月12日 The respondent raised the issue of the boundary dispute The court found that this argument cannot be entertained The respondent has no prospecting rights or any other 2020年5月11日 The applicant holds mining rights in respect of Clifton 15 Mine There rights have not been revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction I need to point out and observe that in Mugangavari v Provincial Mining DirectorMidlands NO2022年3月10日 Taking into consideration the MPRDA prior to the advent of the OES, the Interpretation Act, the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal cases of Tendele, Masuku and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and 2024年11月25日 areas and separate mining rights and separate EMPs apply to the different areas The Area 1 mining right was granted to Tendele on 21 May 2007 and the EMP THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Carol and Tatenda Mining Syndicate v The Minister of Mines and Mining
2022年10月13日 The applicant and the third and fourth respondents are embroiled in a mining dispute, which involves a mining claim known as Victory 100 “A”, Registration Number 42 931, 2021年12月3日 This is a case in which, as I understand the position, the Claimants wish to obtain a judgment on the merits, rather than asking the Court to enter judgment by reason of MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd Anor v Lang2020年6月30日 given the invasive nature of a mining right, there can be no denying that when exercising her rights, the mining right holder, would intrude into the rights of the owner of the South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg2018年12月4日 Although the Constitutional Court judgment dealt with an eviction order, the impact of the judgment would also apply to the converse situation, where a landowner CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGMENT: CCT 265/17
Mining Case Law Review Fact Sheets: Finalised Cases –
2015年3月8日 Subject of the litigation: The primary focus of the project is litigation pertaining to rights and obligations related to carrying out prospecting, exploration or mining activities, with 2020年8月4日 The Landgericht [District Court, Court of First Instance] granted the [buyer’s] claim in the amount of DM 46,51918 plus interest and dismissed [buyer’s] claim with respect Machinery case (Translation), German Supreme Court, 31 The respondent is the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited, Durgapur In 1962 the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd a Government company, in its coal Mining Machinery project started recruiting candidates with a view to meet the initial requirements of trained and experienced workers/operators in the plant when it went into productionSunil Kumar Debnath And Others v Mining Allied Machinery 2024年8月24日 As per Annexure C12 ie Performa invoice the machinery worth Rupees 14,71,500/ was to be sent to complainant Case of complainant is that opposite parties have not delivered the machinery ie Butt Welding machine, Die Polishing machine and Grinder machine to M/S SDA Industries v Arihant Machinery District Consumer Disputes
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
2024年11月25日 described in the mining right dated 22 June 2007; Areas 2 and 3 described in the mining right dated 30 March 2011; the KwaQubuka and Luhlanga areas described in an amendment to the mining right dated 8 March 2013; and a part of the Remainder of Reserve No 3 No 15822, in extent 21 2330525 hectares, describedNM Jamdar, J:— By this Revision Application, the Applicant has challenged the concurrent judgment and orders passed by the learned Small Cause Court, Mumbai and the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai whereby suit filed by the Respondentlandlord for recovery of possession from Applicant and other Defendants has been decreed and the appeal filed by Delux Printing Machinery Co v Jitendra Pranlal Shah2007年1月4日 Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S Kalinga Mining v M/S Arbind Construc on CaseMine preservation or Inspection of any property or thing which is the subjectmatter of the dispute in Kalinga Mining v (2006) CLT 176 and by the Apex Court in the case of Percept D’ Mark (India) Pvt Ltd v Jaheer Khan (supra) as M/S Kalinga Mining v M/S Arbind Construc Orissa High Court 2023年2月3日 kuni v state mining corporation and another [1978] glr 205 @207 edusei v diners club suisse sa [198283] glr 809 @ 811 statutes referred to: the alternative dispute resolution act (act 798), the minerals and mining act, 2006 (act 703) the high court (civil procedure) rules, 2004 (ci 47) the interpretation act, 2009 (act 792),Cassius Mining v Ghana (II), Judgment of the High Court of
mining+rights Indian Case Law Law CaseMine
2002年12月18日 The first being that under the Government Order dated 31052012 mining rights over an area of more than 5 hectares are to be determined by the eTendering processwrit petition relates to an advertisement for grant of mining rights over the plot in question issued in the year 2009 (09092009) where after it appears that the matter has In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa V/s Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its AM MINING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA Gujarat High Court 2013年1月31日 Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2011] EWHC 260 1 This case concerns an open pit copper mine called COP FD which is in the Nchanga area of Zambia's copperbelt the party bringing the proceedings on the basis that without it the claimant will be deprived of its contractual right to have disputes settled by UM Mining Zambia v Konkola Copper Mines, Judgment of the High Court 1993年3月10日 Get free access to the complete judgment in Engineering Constructions Services Ltd v Mining And Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd on CaseMine that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and therefore when the parties refer all their disputes or refer the dispute as to interest as such to the arbitrator, he Engineering Constructions Services Ltd v Mining And Allied Machinery
Mining Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd v Official
2011年8月11日 Get free access to the complete judgment in Mining Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd v Official Liquidator on CaseMine IP Mukerji, J:— The Court: This is an appeal under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us2024年7月29日 Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI, Explained Supreme Court’s verdict on ‘royalty’ 2021年5月8日 Rajasthan Court issues Notices on Petition claiming Ajmer Sharif Dargah as a Shiv Temple, seeks responses from Authorities Allahabad High Court examines Expanded Charges against Mohammed Zubair in FIR alleging Incitement Bangladesh High Court seeksSupreme Court (SC) Judgements on Industrial Disputes Act 2016年8月16日 Prafulla C Pant, J These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated March 22, 2012, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for Page 2 of 15 short NCDRC) in Original Complaint Nos 89 of 1995 and 90 of 1995, whereby the Commission has dismissed the complaints of the appellants, filed under Section CCE, GUNTUR v M/S MINING ALLIED MACHINERY
Ragavendra Kumar v Firm Prem Machinery Co Supreme Court
This Court took note of the fact that the High Court was right in pointing out that the courts below had seriously erred in not considering the entire evidence on record including documents where there was an admission In other words this was a case of nonconsideration of the evidence on record but that is not so in the case in hand6 天之前 The White Paper from which the MPRDA stems, recognises the constitutional constraints of changing the current mineral rights system but acknowledges that the State has a duty to take legislative and other measures to enable citizens to gain access to rights in land on an equitable basis and to bring about reform in land rights (including mineral rights) to redress South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria SAFLIIIn the present case, assessee has allotted shares of Rs 1020 crores to RSMML without any financial obligation on it in lieu of it having obtained the mining lease for the mines, transferring such mining lease, surface rights and other rights in relation thereto for the development, operation and management of mines in favour of the assessee Barmer Lignite Mining Co Ltd v Deputy Commissioner Of2007年4月10日 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RM Lodha, J:— Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of applying Rule 2B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as indicated in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213: CWT, Jaipur v Shyam Mohan Rajasthan High Court Judgment
AM Ashraf v Director Of Mining And Geology, Kerala High Court
2019年1月17日 Director Of Mining And Geology on CaseMine Thereupon, petitioner has filed WP(C) No20827 of 2018 and this Court has passed ExtP2 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner On the basis of ExtP2 judgment, petitioner was being issued with movement permit, however, 1st respondent has The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs LK the engineer has the right to determine the costs which shall be added to the contract price into the extensions granted by the Employer and may be claimed from the Engineer after asking for the assessment and in case there is any dispute to the said M/S National Highways Authority Of vs M/S Hcc Ltd on 8 2017年6月8日 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 390/2016 In the matter between: NUM BCCEI First applicant Second applicant and SYLCO PLANT HIRE (PTY) LTD First respondent CONTRACTORS PLANT HIRE ASSOCIATION CCMATHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN 2010年8月13日 1 In this writ petition, the petitionercompany is aggrieved by the Notification dated 1952004 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong (respondent No 8) declaring only a part of 100 hectares of its limestone mining area and 76 hectares of land for crushing area as a Customs Warehousing Station under section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 without the long Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd v Union Of India And Ors
Carol and Tatenda Mining Syndicate v The Minister of Mines and Mining
2022年10月13日 Applicant’s Case A farmerminer dispute has been raging on between the applicant and the third and fourth respondents since 2020, when the third respondent received an offer letter for the farm The dispute was referred to the second respondent for determination A meeting which involved all interested parties was held before the second 2019年10月4日 it is a commercial dispute The High Court on the other hand had found fault with the manner in which the Commercial Court had rested its consideration on the Memorandum and Articles of Association and had examined the matter in detail to come to a conclusion that the immovable property in the instant case was not being used for trade or commerceJ U D G M E N T AS Bopanna,J SUPREME COURT OF 2021年4月26日 5 Ownership of rights in the case of patent application using others' technical secrets without permission [(2020) SPC IP Civil Final 871 Case of Patent Ownership Dispute between Appellant Tianjin Greenpine Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd and Appellee ]Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the 2021年5月31日 Conflicting landcourt judgements is becoming a growing concern to researchers and practitioners This study focused on identifying the main forms and causes of land disputes as well as gaining (PDF) Land disputes and conflicting landcourt judgement resolution
Supreme Court Judgment on Retrospective Application of Mining
2024年8月14日 Supreme Court judgment dated August 14, 2024, involving a significant legal issue related to the retrospective application of a court ruling in mining taxation Summary of the Judgment: 1 Background : – The case involves the overruling of the 1990 India Cement Ltd2021年4月26日 5 Ownership of rights in the case of patent application using others' technical secrets without permission [(2020) SPC IP Civil Final 871 Case of Patent Ownership Dispute between Appellant Tianjin Greenpine Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd and Appellee ]Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the On 15 February 2021, the English Commercial Court in Republic of Sierra Leone vSL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm) ruled on the effect of noncompliance with a multitier dispute resolution provisionThe decision (available here) settles a difficult question of English arbitration lawIn summary the English Commercial Court held that: Noncompliance with a multitier Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd: The English Commercial Court This section contains all written judgments issued by the Supreme Court of Singapore since 2000 Refer to LawNet for the latest State Courts and Family Justice Courts judgments Try the AI Pair prototype for Supreme Court judgmentsJudgments and case summaries
Sunil Kumar Debnath And Others v Mining Allied Machinery
The respondent is the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Limited, Durgapur In 1962 the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd a Government company, in its coal Mining Machinery project started recruiting candidates with a view to meet the initial requirements of trained and experienced workers/operators in the plant when it went into production2024年8月24日 As per Annexure C12 ie Performa invoice the machinery worth Rupees 14,71,500/ was to be sent to complainant Case of complainant is that opposite parties have not delivered the machinery ie Butt Welding machine, Die Polishing machine and Grinder machine to M/S SDA Industries v Arihant Machinery District Consumer Disputes 2024年11月25日 described in the mining right dated 22 June 2007; Areas 2 and 3 described in the mining right dated 30 March 2011; the KwaQubuka and Luhlanga areas described in an amendment to the mining right dated 8 March 2013; and a part of the Remainder of Reserve No 3 No 15822, in extent 21 2330525 hectares, describedTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA NM Jamdar, J:— By this Revision Application, the Applicant has challenged the concurrent judgment and orders passed by the learned Small Cause Court, Mumbai and the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai whereby suit filed by the Respondentlandlord for recovery of possession from Applicant and other Defendants has been decreed and the appeal filed by Delux Printing Machinery Co v Jitendra Pranlal Shah
M/S Kalinga Mining v M/S Arbind Construc Orissa High Court
2007年1月4日 Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S Kalinga Mining v M/S Arbind Construc on CaseMine preservation or Inspection of any property or thing which is the subjectmatter of the dispute in Kalinga Mining v (2006) CLT 176 and by the Apex Court in the case of Percept D’ Mark (India) Pvt Ltd v Jaheer Khan (supra) as 2023年2月3日 kuni v state mining corporation and another [1978] glr 205 @207 edusei v diners club suisse sa [198283] glr 809 @ 811 statutes referred to: the alternative dispute resolution act (act 798), the minerals and mining act, 2006 (act 703) the high court (civil procedure) rules, 2004 (ci 47) the interpretation act, 2009 (act 792),Cassius Mining v Ghana (II), Judgment of the High Court of 2002年12月18日 The first being that under the Government Order dated 31052012 mining rights over an area of more than 5 hectares are to be determined by the eTendering processwrit petition relates to an advertisement for grant of mining rights over the plot in question issued in the year 2009 (09092009) where after it appears that the matter has mining+rights Indian Case Law Law CaseMineIn a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa V/s Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its AM MINING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA Gujarat High Court
UM Mining Zambia v Konkola Copper Mines, Judgment of the High Court
2013年1月31日 Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2011] EWHC 260 1 This case concerns an open pit copper mine called COP FD which is in the Nchanga area of Zambia's copperbelt the party bringing the proceedings on the basis that without it the claimant will be deprived of its contractual right to have disputes settled by 1993年3月10日 Get free access to the complete judgment in Engineering Constructions Services Ltd v Mining And Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd on CaseMine that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and therefore when the parties refer all their disputes or refer the dispute as to interest as such to the arbitrator, he Engineering Constructions Services Ltd v Mining And Allied Machinery