Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAI SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided
19 November 1976
Judges listed
HANS RAJ KHANNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 137 · 1976 INSC 295
Also cited as
  • (1977) 1 SCC 1 (24 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1977 SC 898 (11 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

J. This appeal on C<!_rtificate is against the order of the Rajasthan High Court dismj.ssing in limine the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, field by the appellant against the Union of India, the State of Rajasthan and twoi others, praying for quashing the demand made from the appellant in respect of royalty.

p. 137, margin F

The appellant took on lease 180 acres of land from the Govern- ;ment o~ Rajasthan on June 18, 1962 for the purpose of mining gypsum ore; for a period of 20 years. Section 9(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 relates to royalties in respect of mining leases. According to that provision Jhe holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of the said Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed. or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. The Second Schedule provides at item No. 13 the rate on which. royalty, etc., in respect of gypsum is to be paid. According to that item at the relevant time, royalty would pe at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per tom1e of gypsum containing 85 per cent and above CaS042H20· and at the rate of 75 paise per tonne of gypsum containing less than 85 per cent of CaS042H20.

pp. 137–138, margin G

Royalty was demanded from the appellant in respect of gypsum won by him at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per tonne. The case of the appellant, however, is that the gypsum which was won by him contained less than 85 per cent of CaS042H20. As against that, the stand taken by the respondents is that the appellant failed to furnish the analysis reports from a standard laboratory to show that gypsum won by him contained less than 85 per cent CaS042H20. Revision filed by the appellant against the decision of the Rajasthan Government to charge royalty at the rate. of Rs. 1.25 per tonne was dismissed by the Central Government.

p. 138, margin B

The High Courtj dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it involved detetmination of disputed questions of fact. It was also observed that the High Court should not in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, grant relief to the appellant when he had an alternative remedy. After hearing Mr. Sobhagmal Jain on behalf of the appellant, we see no cogent ground to take a view different from that taken by/ the High Court. There cannot, in our opinion, be any doubt on the pqint that the extent of purity of the gypsum won by; the appellant is a question of fact. It has also been brought to our notice that after the dismissal of th({ writ petition by the High Court, the appellant has filed a suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is the subject matter of the writ petition. In our opinion, the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in· respect of the same matter at the same time.

p. 138, margin D

Mr. Sobhagmal points out that the suit brought by the appellant has been dismissed in default and that an application for the restoration of thei suit has been filed in the trial court. Learned counsel for thei respondents state that they would not oppose the application for restoration of the suit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal' but withl no order as to costs. M.R. Appeal dismissed~

p. 138, margin F