Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)

Union Of India & Anr vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 12 November, 2007

In (2007) 13 SCC 207 [UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ANOTHER], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question relating to pre-deposit under Section 129-E of Customs Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that three aspects has to be focussed while dealing with such applications are (a) prima facie case (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable loss.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - A Pasayat - Full Document

S.Vasudeva Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 March, 1993

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.VASUDEVA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [AIR 1994 SC 923] observed that under Indian conditions the expression undue hardship is normally related to economic hardship. Undue means something which is not merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it. Undue hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 85 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Monotosh Saha vs Special Director Enforcement ... on 4 December, 2009

11. Two important expressions used in Section 35F of Central Excise Act are undue hardship to such person and safeguard the interests of Revenue. While dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of the Revenue have to be kept in view. The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MONOTOSH SAHA V. SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER 2008 AIR SCW 6004].
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - K J Sengupta - Full Document
1