{"id":103144,"date":"2009-05-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-13T23:07:38","modified_gmt":"2017-10-13T17:37:38","slug":"ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                      C.W.J.C. No. 1594 of 2000 (R)\n\n                  M\/s. Bijoy Mining Company Ltd.                     ...      ...     Petitioner\n                                                        Versus\n                  Bihar State Electricity Board &amp; Ors.         ...            ...     Respondents\n                                               --------\n                  CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA\n\n                  For the Petitioner:                        Mr.   Binod Poddar, Sr. Advocate\n                                                             Mr.   Biren Poddar, Advocate\n                                                             Mr.   Piyush Poddar, Advocate\n                  For the Respondents:                       Mr.   V.K.Prasad, Advocate\n                                                             Mr.   Gautam Rakesh, Advocate\n                                                  --------\n                  C.A.V. on 12.05.2009                       Pronounced on       21. 05.2009.\n                                              ORDER\n07\/ 21.05.2009<\/pre>\n<p>.              The present writ petition has been preferred for the following<br \/>\n                  relief:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                  (a) For a direction upon the Respondents to forthwith reduce the<br \/>\n                       contract demand to 200 KVA from 240 KVA with effect from its<br \/>\n                       date of application i.e. 13.5.1995 (Annexure-2) pursuant to which<br \/>\n                       the officials of the Board already conducted load verification in the<br \/>\n                       petitioner&#8217;s premises on 26.5.1995 (Annexure-4) and since then<br \/>\n                       the Respondents are sitting tight over the matter although the<br \/>\n                       petitioner has been giving reminders from time to time to them for<br \/>\n                       the said purpose,\n<\/p>\n<p>                  (b) For a direction upon the Respondents to calculate and refund the<br \/>\n                       excess amount charged and realized from the petitioner since May,<br \/>\n                       1995 till date i.e. the difference of charges between the old<br \/>\n                       constructed load of 240 KVA and the reduced load of 200 KVA for<br \/>\n                       which application was filed on 13.5.1995 (Annexure-2),\n<\/p>\n<p>                  (c) For a direction upon the Respondents to consider the application<br \/>\n                       dated     29.11.1995 (Annexure-2) filed             by   the petitioner in<br \/>\n                       prescribed form after depositing the fee of Rs.70\/- for the same<br \/>\n                       vide receipt No. 671068 dated 20.11.1995 (Annexure-5\/1) before<br \/>\n                       Respondent No. 7 on 29.11.1995 itself for reduction in the<br \/>\n                       contracted load from 240 KVA to 200 KVA and to reduce the<br \/>\n                       contracted load accordingly to 200 KVA and grant such reduction<br \/>\n                       in load in energy bills with effect from the date of said application<br \/>\n                       dated 29.11.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  2.         The facts in brief are stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                             The petitioner has a mining business at Daltonganj in the<br \/>\n                  district of Palamau. It had entered into an agreement on 1.4.1986<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>with the respondent Board for supply of electricity under Tariff Symbol<br \/>\nH.T.S.-I having its consumer No. D-350. The contract demand as<br \/>\nmentioned in serial No. 4 to the schedule at page-7 of the H.T.<br \/>\nAgreement was 240 KVA and the bills were raised by the Board and<br \/>\nthe petitioner was paying the bills accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     The case of the petitioner is that it started experiencing low<br \/>\nvoltage in supply which made it impossible to run its factory and in<br \/>\norder to reduce the load the petitioner closed down one of its Roller<br \/>\nMills in the month of October, 1994 and the same was duly informed<br \/>\nto the Electrical Engineer (Rural). The petitioner also applied for<br \/>\nwithdrawal of one of the aforesaid mills from its factory vide its<br \/>\napplication dated 12.5.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     To ascertain the load of the petitioner and its transformer&#8217;s<br \/>\ncapacity for taking further action in the matter a committee inspected<br \/>\nthe premises on 26.5.1995 and prepared a verification report signed<br \/>\nby all the members of the verification team showing the load of the<br \/>\npetitioner, based on the capacity of the machineries installed in the<br \/>\nfactory of the petitioner and on calculation of the load of the different<br \/>\nmachineries recorded in the said verification report the total load of<br \/>\nthe petitioner was found to be 220.75 HP i.e. equivalent to 205.95<br \/>\nKVA.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     As against the reduced requirement the petitioner applied for<br \/>\nreduction of load only to the extent of 200 KVA and in reply<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 vide its letter dated 29.8.95 directed to deposit<br \/>\nrequisite application fee and to file application in proper form for load<br \/>\nreduction in the Office of the Assistant Electrical Engineer. Finally on<br \/>\ndeposit of the requisite fee a fresh application for load reduction in<br \/>\nprescribed form for new connection was applied alongwith the money<br \/>\nreceipt. No action was taken on the application and the energy bills<br \/>\ncontinued to be raised based on contract demand of 240 KVA. Being<br \/>\nconstrained the petitioner again wrote a letter on 27.8.99 to intervene<br \/>\nin the matter personally since four years had already passed but no<br \/>\naction was taken to reduce the contract demand and the petitioner<br \/>\nwas compelled to pay at the old contract demand of 240 KVA.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     The petitioner being constrained preferred this writ petition for<br \/>\nreducing the contract demand to 200 KVA from 240 KVA from the<br \/>\ndate of its application dated 13.5.95 and has further prayed for refund<br \/>\nof the excess amount charged from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     The learned counsel for the respondent in their counter-<br \/>\naffidavit at paragraphs-6(d) &amp; (e) has submitted as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;6(d) As per clause 9 of the H.T. Agreement, the load of an<br \/>\n              applicant consumer can be reduced only after one year<br \/>\n              from the date of first information, meaning thereby that a<br \/>\n              consumer will be charged on the basis of its earlier load<br \/>\n              till the completion of one year from the date of<br \/>\n              application for reduction of load.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (e) From December, 1995 to July, 1997, the petitioner was<br \/>\n              billed on the basis of 216 KVA as per the letter dated<br \/>\n              4.3.98 issued by the Respondent No. 4 which the<br \/>\n              petitioner readily accepted and did not raise any objection<br \/>\n              in this regard till date.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.     It has also given chart\/statement as per the load verification<br \/>\nreport and has reiterated the fact that the bills between the period<br \/>\nfrom December, 1995 to July, 1997 were raised on the basis of 216<br \/>\nKVA which the petitioner had readily accepted and did not raise any<br \/>\nobjection and thus the claim for further reduction to 200 KVA was<br \/>\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     I have considered the rival submission and the pleading. The<br \/>\nmain contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nit was incumbent upon the respondent to reduce the load from 240<br \/>\nKVA to 200 KVA w.e.f. the date of application i.e. from 13.5.1995. It<br \/>\nhas further been submitted that at least after a lapse of one year from<br \/>\nthe date of application the load reduction should have been allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.    In the counter-affidavit at paragraphs-6(d) &amp; (e), as quoted<br \/>\nhereinabove, it will be evident that even the Board on oath has stated<br \/>\nthat they are ready and willing that as per Clause 9 of the H.T.<br \/>\nAgreement to reduce the contract load only after one year from the<br \/>\ndate of application to reduce the contract load. It is also admitted that<br \/>\nfrom December, 1995 to July, 1997 the petitioner&#8217;s bill was raised on<br \/>\nthe basis of 216 KVA and the petitioner readily paid it without any<br \/>\nobjection. As per Clause 9 of the H.T. Agreement, the same can be<br \/>\ndetermined before the expiry of three years from the date of<br \/>\ncommencement of the supply of energy. It further provides that the<br \/>\nconsumer can also determine this agreement on giving twelve months<br \/>\nprior notice in writing.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.    Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position as stated in<br \/>\nthe counter-affidavit and also in view of the fact that the bills were<br \/>\nraised on the reduced contract load of 216 KVA from 1995 onwards<br \/>\nand the same was paid by the petitioner without any objection and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>thus to that extent it can be considered to be an admitted position on<br \/>\nthe part of both the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as the Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.    This issue in question was also considered in Associated<br \/>\nCement Company Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in<br \/>\n2002(3) JCR page 638, wherein a Division Bench of this Court at<br \/>\nparagraph-10 held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;10. Be that as it may, it appears that the respondent-Board<br \/>\n       subsequently realized their arbitrary action by rejecting<br \/>\n       application of the petitioner dated 5.11.1987 and then the<br \/>\n       subsequent application filed by the appellant was entertained<br \/>\n       and was recommended by Executive Engineer, Superintending<br \/>\n       Engineer for reduction of load. Learned Single Judge therefore,<br \/>\n       rightly came to the conclusion that appellant was entitled to<br \/>\n       reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA. The<br \/>\n       contention of the appellant is that the reduction of load ought to<br \/>\n       have been given from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA cannot be<br \/>\n       accepted for the reason that admittedly after the application<br \/>\n       dated 5.11.1987 the contract load was found in between 8000<br \/>\n       KVA to 9000 KVA. However, in our view, the learned Single<br \/>\n       Judge was not justified in holding that the reduction of<br \/>\n       maximum contract demand will be effective from June, 1991 as<br \/>\n       notice for reduction of load was given in May, 1990. It has not<br \/>\n       been disputed by the Board that notice dated 5.11.1987 was<br \/>\n       served upon the Board for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to<br \/>\n       8000 KVA and the said application was processed and<br \/>\n       recommended by the authorities but it was ultimately rejected on<br \/>\n       the ground that as per the condition put in the agreement the<br \/>\n       appellant was not entitled to reduction of contract demand. Once<br \/>\n       it was held that rejection of that application on that condition<br \/>\n       was illegal and arbitrary and when such condition was put in the<br \/>\n       agreement was passed by the learned Single Judge then there is<br \/>\n       no reason why the appellant would not be entitled to reduction<br \/>\n       of load with effect from expiry of one year from the date of<br \/>\n       service of notice dated 5.11.1987. In our view therefore, the<br \/>\n       appellant company became entitled to reduction of maximum<br \/>\n       contract demand from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA with effect<br \/>\n       from December, 1988.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>13.   The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and<br \/>\nAnother vs. Manju Singh Chauhan, reported in (2000) 10 SCC page<br \/>\n290, while considering a similar issue of reduction of the maximum<br \/>\ncontract load from 168 KVA to 100 KVA had held at paragraph- 8 and<br \/>\n9 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;8. It is contended that the Board itself, after taking into consideration<br \/>\n          the circumstances, had reduced the load from 168 KVA to 143<br \/>\n          KVA with effect from 1-8-1987 and again to 126 KVA with effect<br \/>\n          from 1-4-1988. It is contended that if the load could be reduced by<br \/>\n          the Board for the period indicated above, there was no reason why<br \/>\n          it could not have been reduced on the request of the respondent<br \/>\n          for the period in question. It was pointed out to the Commission<br \/>\n          that the reduction in the contracted load was done in the light of<br \/>\n          the decision taken by the Board on the representation of the<br \/>\n          Federation of M.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry. They<br \/>\n          had given sufficient reason for the reduction granted to the<br \/>\n          respondent on the earlier occasion and that it could not be treated<br \/>\n          as a binding precedent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      9. We are firmly of the view that the action of the Board in<br \/>\n          refusing the reduction of the load from 168 KVA to 100<br \/>\n          KVA as requested by the respondent was wholly in<br \/>\n          consonance with the terms of the agreement between the<br \/>\n          parties. That being so, there was no deficiency of service<br \/>\n          involved in this case and the claim petition was not<br \/>\n          maintainable before the National Commission under the<br \/>\n          Act.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>14.   We are bound by the judgment of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court.<br \/>\nRelying upon the aforesaid judgements it will be relevant to refer once<br \/>\nagain paragraph(e) of the counter affidavit as quoted in paragraph-7<br \/>\nwherein the Board itself after considering the verification report, the<br \/>\nconsumption and all the factual aspects of the matter took the decision<br \/>\nto reduce the contract load to 216 KVA based on which the energy bills<br \/>\nwere raised and the petitioner without any objection paid the same<br \/>\nand thus in the light of the aforesaid admitted position and the facts<br \/>\nand circumstance as discussed hereinabove, it will be appropriate to<br \/>\ndirect the Board to consider raising the bills for the period in question<br \/>\nbased on 216 KVA as per the reduction granted with effect from<br \/>\nDecember, 1995 to July, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>15.    Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nthis writ petition is partly allowed in the light of the aforesaid direction<br \/>\nand in case of any extra payment already made for the energy bills<br \/>\nbeyond 216 KVA after 1995 the petitioner will be entitled to refund of<br \/>\nthe amount in excess already paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)<br \/>\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\nDated the 21st May, 2009<br \/>\nD.S.\/sudhir N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.W.J.C. No. 1594 of 2000 (R) M\/s. Bijoy Mining Company Ltd. &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner Versus Bihar State Electricity Board &amp; Ors. &#8230; &#8230; Respondents &#8212;&#8212;&#8211; CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1914,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"wordCount":1914,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009","name":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-13T17:37:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bijoy-mining-company-ltd-vs-b-s-e-b-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Bijoy Mining Company Ltd vs B.S.E.B. &amp; Ors on 21 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}