Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Another(And ... on 6 May, 1959
The other Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court relied upon by Shri Sorabji was in the case of Sri Krishna v. Union of India , wherein, in para 8 the Division Bench has observed that that the order of the Tribunal should show if the pleas raised before it have any merit prima facie or not. If the appellant has such a strong prima facie case then he would be entitled to be exonerated from the payment.
Escorts Limited And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 October, 1992
8. As far as this aspect is concerned, Shri Shreedharan, learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon 4 other judgments. Firstly in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has referred to a judgment of the CEGAT in para 13, with approval, wherein it is stated that where financial hardship has been established, that would be sufficient for whole or partial waiver of pre-deposit.
Indian Charge Chrome Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 6 January, 1999
The 3rd judgment relied upon by him was of Orissa High Court in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Union of India . In paras 9 and 11 of the said judgment is observed by the Orissa High Court that if the financial position of the appellant is precarious and it is not possible for it to comply with the requirement of deposit of the disputed amount or it may do so by irreparable loss, it will be a factor to be considered.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
Shri Sorabji submitted that there are a large number of judgments on the approach to be adopted by the Courts when it comes to the encashment of bank guarantees. He particularly made a reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. . In para 21 of the said judgment reference is made to earlier decisions of the Apex Court and a paragraph is quoted with approval from earlier decision in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation (1997) 1 SCC 568, to the effect that in the course of commercial dealings when unconditional bank guarantee is given, the bank guarantee will have to be permitted to be encashed. He then emphasised para 22 of the said judgment which states that the second exception to the rule of granting injunction i.e. irretrievable injury was that there has to be such a circumstance which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself, if he ultimately succeeds. In the present case, since the Central Government was concerned in the matter, such a situation would not arise.
Uptron Powertronics vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut on 4 February, 1987
In para 2 of its judgment in Uptron Powertronics v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut , the Division Bench has observed that in every case when the appellant wants any discretionary relief in his favour, he has first to show prima facie substance in his claim. On this being done, he then has to further show undue hardship to him. The reverse was not to be done.
Hindustan Steel Workersconstruction ... vs G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers)Pvt. Ltd on 13 September, 1995
Shri Sorabji relied upon the ratios of the Apex Court in catena of judgments viz. in the case of Svenska Handelsbanken v. Charge Chrome, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Maharashtra SEB, Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. and U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumao International Ltd. referred to in para 21 of the judgment in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. (supra) and submitted that the bank guarantees be allowed to be encashed subject to the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner that in the event, decision goes in favour of the respondent the amount will be returned back to the respondent with interest at the appropriate rate to be decided by the Court.
Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972
Shri Sorabji relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Collector v. Dunlap India and submitted that Governments are not run on bank guarantees and revenue will suffer if bank guarantees are not allowed to be encashed.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs State Bank Of India, Overseas Branch, ... on 21 July, 2000
9. Shri Sorabji on the other hand submitted that whereas the respondent was under a duty to keep the bank guarantees alive, in view of Clause 6 of the bank guarantees, there was no restriction on petitioner not to encash them. Shri Sorabji submitted that Petitioner's demand is only for a part of duty which was guaranteed through the bank guarantees which were sought to be encashed at this point of time. He submitted that the petitioner had waited till the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and was not inclined to wait any further. With respect to the alleged distinction between bank guarantees for commercial requirements and statutory requisitions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Cas Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of India wherein in para 7 it is observed by the Apex Court as under: