{"id":144090,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-05T08:32:43","modified_gmt":"2015-10-05T03:02:43","slug":"ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n     abs\n\n                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                                     WRIT PETITION NO.  6879 OF 2009\n\n\n    CEAT Limited                                                                .. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n         V\/s\n    The Union of India & Ors.                                                   .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Mr. D.B. Shroff, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avinash Joshi i\/b Mulla & Mulla \n                               \n    Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the petitioner.\n\n    Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.B. Pardeshi for the respondents.\n                              \n\n                                          CORAM :  FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATE     :  1ST SEPTEMBER 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ferdino I. Rebello, J.)\n\n    1.      Rule.  Heard forthwith.\n\n<\/pre>\n
    2.      The petitioner by the present petition impugns the order dated 24th <\/p>\n
    June 2009 whereby the application of the petitioner herein for waiver of pre-\n<\/p>\n
    deposit has been rejected and the petitioner was called upon to pre-deposit a <\/p>\n
    sum of Rs.66,62,032\/- along with the interest as applicable.\n<\/p>\n
    3.      At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioner their learned <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    counsel draws our attention to para 6 of the order of the Tribunal wherein it <\/p>\n
    is noted that the amount of Rs.33,17,170\/- was deposited towards duty.  The <\/p>\n
    balance   is   towards   the   interest.     It   is   submitted   that   considering   the <\/p>\n
    provisions of section 11B(2) proviso (c) of the Customs Act, the doctrine of <\/p>\n
    unjust   enrichment   would   not   apply.     It   is   also   pointed   out   that   the   said <\/p>\n
    section refers only to the refund of duty and not the interest.  In other words, <\/p>\n
    it is submitted that the interest paid on the language of section itself would <\/p>\n
    not be the subject matter of unjust enrichment.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supports <\/p>\n
    the order of the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     We propose to consider the  issue of pre deposit   in this case, since <\/p>\n
    recently, a large number of matters are coming up before us from the orders <\/p>\n
    passed by the Tribunal  in the matter of pre deposit.  The right to appeal is <\/p>\n
    neither absolute nor ingredient of natural justice,  principles of which must <\/p>\n
    be followed in all judicial and quasi judicial adjudication. The right to appeal <\/p>\n
    is statutory right and it can be circumscribed fulfillment of conditions, in the <\/p>\n
    instant case  pre-deposit.   In  considering the  case    for  such deposit, three <\/p>\n
    things are to be considered by the tribunal while dealing with the application <\/p>\n
    for dispensing with the pre deposit. They are prima facie case, balance of <\/p>\n
    convenience and irreparable loss. See Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Tax, 2009 (237) E.L.T. 3 ( S.C.).\n<\/p>\n
    6.    Insofar as  section 35(F)  of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is concerned, <\/p>\n
    the relevant provision may be reproduced as :\n<\/p>\n
         “35F. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty <\/p>\n
         levied.–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or <\/p>\n
              order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in <\/p>\n
              respect   of   goods   which   are   not   under   the   control   of <\/p>\n
              Central   Excise   authorities   or   any   penalty   levied   under <\/p>\n
              this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such <\/p>\n
              decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with <\/p>\n
              the   adjudicating   authority   the   duty   demanded   or   the <\/p>\n
              penalty   levied:   Provided   that   where   in   any   particular <\/p>\n
              case   the   Commissioner   (Appeals)   or   the   Appellate <\/p>\n
              Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded <\/p>\n
              or penalty levied would cause undue  hardship to such <\/p>\n
              person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may <\/p>\n
              be,   the   Appellate   Tribunal,   may   dispense   with   such <\/p>\n
              deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem <\/p>\n
              fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of revenue:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Provided further that where an application is <\/p>\n
                     filed   before   the   Commissioner   (Appeals)   for <\/p>\n
                     dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded <\/p>\n
                     or   penalty   levied   under   the   first  proviso,   the <\/p>\n
                     Commissioner   (Appeals)   shall,   where   it   is <\/p>\n
                     possible   to   do   so,   decide   such   application <\/p>\n
                     within thirty days from the date of its filing.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.     In a case thus where the Appellate Authority  is of the opinion that the <\/p>\n
    deposit   of duty  demanded or penalty levied on the goods, undue hardship <\/p>\n
    may  be  occasioned   to  such  person,  the   Appellate  Authority  may  dispense <\/p>\n
    with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit   to  impose <\/p>\n
    as   to   safeguard   the   interest   of   the   revenue.   This   had   come   up   for <\/p>\n
    consideration  in   a   large   number  of  judgments.  We  may  only  refer  to   the <\/p>\n
    judgment in the case of  Benara Valves Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central <\/p>\n
    Excise, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) and  gainfully reproduce the following <\/p>\n
    paragraphs :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “8   It   is   true   that   on   merely   establishing   a   prima <\/p>\n
                   facie case, interim order of protection should not be <\/p>\n
                   passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that <\/p>\n
                   the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be <\/p>\n
                   undesirable   to  require   the   assessee  to  pay  full   or <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
     substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay <\/p>\n
     should   not   be   disposed   of   in   a   routine   matter <\/p>\n
     unmindful   of   the   consequences   flowing   from   the <\/p>\n
     order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part <\/p>\n
     of the demand. There can be no rule of universal <\/p>\n
     application in such matters and the order has to be <\/p>\n
     passed   keeping   in   view   the   factual   scenario <\/p>\n
     involved. Merely because this Court has indicated <\/p>\n
     the   principles  that   does   not   give  a  license   to   the <\/p>\n
     forum\/authority to pass an order which cannot be <\/p>\n
     sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and <\/p>\n
     public interest. Where denial of interim relief may <\/p>\n
     lead   to   public   mischief,   grave   irreparable   private <\/p>\n
     injury or shake a citizens’ faith in the impartiality of <\/p>\n
     public administration, interim relief can be given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.     It   has   become   an   unfortunate   trend   to <\/p>\n
     casually dispose of stay applications by referring to <\/p>\n
     decisions in Siliguri Municipality and Dunlop India <\/p>\n
     cases   (supra)   without   analysing   factual   scenario <\/p>\n
     involved in a particular case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.    Two   significant   expressions   used   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
     provisions are “undue hardship to such person” and <\/p>\n
     “safeguard   the   interests   of   revenue”.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
     while   dealing   with   the   application   twin <\/p>\n
     requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of <\/p>\n
     undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions <\/p>\n
     to   safeguard   the   interest   of   Revenue   have   to   be <\/p>\n
     kept in view.\n<\/p>\n
     12.   As   noted   above   there   are   two   important <\/p>\n
     expressions in Section 35F. One is undue hardship.\n<\/p>\n
     This is a matter within the special knowledge of the <\/p>\n
     applicant for waiver and has to be established by <\/p>\n
     him. A mere assertion about undue hardship would <\/p>\n
     not be sufficient. It was noted by this Court in  S.\n<\/p>\n
     Vasudeva  v.  State   of   Karnataka   and   Ors.\n<\/p>\n
     MANU\/SC\/0199\/1994  :   [1993]2SCR715   that <\/p>\n
     under   Indian   conditions   expression   “Undue <\/p>\n
     hardship” is normally related to economic hardship.\n<\/p>\n
     “Undue”   which   means   something   which   is   not <\/p>\n
     merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very <\/p>\n
     much   disproportionate   to   it.   Undue   hardship   is <\/p>\n
     caused when the hardship is not warranted by the <\/p>\n
     circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
               13.    For a hardship to be ‘undue’ it must be shown <\/p>\n
               that   the   particular   burden   to   have   to   observe   or <\/p>\n
               perform the requirement is out of proportion to the <\/p>\n
               nature   of   the   requirement   itself,   and   the   benefit <\/p>\n
               which the applicant would derive from compliance <\/p>\n
               with it.\n<\/p>\n
               14.    The word “undue” adds something more than <\/p>\n
               just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a <\/p>\n
               hardship greater than the circumstances warrant.\n<\/p>\n
               15.    The   other   aspect   relates   to   imposition   of <\/p>\n
               condition to safeguard the interest of revenue. This <\/p>\n
               is  an aspect which the Tribunal has to bring into <\/p>\n
               focus.   It   is   for   the   Tribunal   to   impose   such <\/p>\n
               conditions as are deemed proper to safeguard the <\/p>\n
               interest of revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal while <\/p>\n
               dealing   with   the   application   has   to   consider <\/p>\n
               materials to be placed by the assessee relating to <\/p>\n
               undue hardship and also to stipulate condition as <\/p>\n
               required to safeguard the interest of revenue.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.   This view thereafter has been reiterated in     Pennar Industries Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    Versus State of Andrha Pradesh & Ors. 2009 (3) SCC 177, in Ravi Gupta <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Versus   Commissioner   of   Central   excise,   2009   (237)   E.LT..   3   (SC),   in <\/p>\n
    Monotosh Saha Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2008 (229) <\/p>\n
    E.L.T. 492 (S.C.) as also in Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals India Ltd. v. Union of  <\/p>\n
    India,<\/a> 2008 (221) E.L.T. 7 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
    9.     In B.M. Malani Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 306 ITR <\/p>\n
    196 (SC), the Supreme Court in a case under the I.T. Act observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
           “Computation   to   pay   any   unjust   dues   per   se   would   cause <\/p>\n
           hardship.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After saying so the court observed that in  in such cases the question <\/p>\n
    would arise as to whether the default in payment of the amount was due to <\/p>\n
    circumstances   beyond   the   control   of   the   assessee.     Then   considering   the <\/p>\n
    concept of what can be “genuine hardship”, the court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
           “The term `genuine’ as per the New Collins Concise English <\/p>\n
           Dictionary is defined as under:<\/p>\n
           ‘Genuine’ means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending <\/p>\n
           (not bogus or merely a ruse)<\/p>\n
           For   interpretation   of   the   aforementioned   provision,   the <\/p>\n
           principle of purposive construction should be resorted to. Levy <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     of interest is statutory in nature, inter alia for re-compensating <\/p>\n
     the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the <\/p>\n
     assessee within the time specified there for. The said principle <\/p>\n
     should also be applied for the purpose of determining as to <\/p>\n
     whether   any   hardship   had   been   caused   or   not.   A   genuine <\/p>\n
     hardship would, inter alia, mean a genuine difficulty. That per <\/p>\n
     se would not lead to a conclusion that a person having large <\/p>\n
     assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets <\/p>\n
     and pay the amount of interest levied.\n<\/p>\n
     The   ingredients   of   genuine   hardship   must   be   determined <\/p>\n
     keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal <\/p>\n
     conspectus   attending   thereto.   For   the   said   purpose,   another <\/p>\n
     well-known principle, namely, a person cannot take Page 4276 <\/p>\n
     advantage  of  his  own  wrong, may also have  to be borne  in <\/p>\n
     mind. The said principle, it is conceded, has not been applied <\/p>\n
     by the courts below in this case, but we may take note of a few <\/p>\n
     precedents   operating   in   the   field   to   highlight   the <\/p>\n
     aforementioned proposition of law. See Priyanka Overseas Pvt.\n<\/p>\n
     Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC <\/p>\n
     102, para 39; Union of India and Ors. v. Major General Madan Lal<\/p>\n
     Yadav (Retd.)  MANU\/SC\/0355\/1996<\/a>  :   [1996]3SCR785   ;  Ashok <\/p>\n
     Kapil  v.  Sana
\n                       Ullah<\/a>   (dead)   and   Ors.   MANU\/SC\/1256\/1996   :\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
           (1996) 6 SCC 342 ; Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar
\n                                                            MANU\/SC\/<\/a> <\/p>\n
           0826\/2003 : AIR2004SC230 ; first sentence, Kusheshwar Prasad <\/p>\n
           Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
                                            MANU\/SC\/ 1542\/2007  : 2007 (4) <\/p>\n
           SCALE 534, paras 13, 14 and 16.\n<\/p>\n
           Thus, the said principle, in our opinion, should be applied even <\/p>\n
           in a case of this nature. A statutory authority despite receipt of <\/p>\n
           such a request could not have kept mum. It should have taken <\/p>\n
           some  action.  It   should   have  responded  to   the   prayer   of   the <\/p>\n
           appellant.\n<\/p>\n
           However,   another   principle   should   also   be   borne   in   mind, <\/p>\n
           namely,   that   a   statutory   authority   must   act   within   the   four <\/p>\n
           corners of the statute. Indisputably, the Commissioner has the <\/p>\n
           discretion not to accede to the request of the assessee, but that <\/p>\n
           discretion must be judiciously exercised. He has to arrive at a <\/p>\n
           satisfaction that the three conditions laid down therein have <\/p>\n
           been fulfilled before passing an order waiving interest.”\n<\/p>\n
    10.    We may also gainfully refer to the judgment in Sangfrod Remedies Lvt.\n<\/p>\n
    v.   Union   of   India,   1998(103)   ELT   5   (SC),   where   the   Supreme   Court   was <\/p>\n
    pleased to observe that in considering an application for stay, the fact an <\/p>\n
    industry has been declared sick by the BIFR would be relevant relevant.  In <\/p>\n
    Vijay Packaing System Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, 2000  <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
    (118) ELT 553 (SC),  in a matter arising under the Central Excise Act, the <\/p>\n
    Supreme   Court   was   again   pleased   to   hold   that   where   the   appellant   was <\/p>\n
    before the BIFR, the appeal could be heard without calling on the assessee to <\/p>\n
    pre-deposit.\n<\/p>\n
    11.    We may also consider the judgment in Vijay Prakash Mehta v. Collector  <\/p>\n
    of Customs, 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC), where the Supreme Court was pleased <\/p>\n
    to observe that a right to appeal is a statutory right and considering section <\/p>\n
    129E of the Customs Act, there was discretion in the authority to dispense <\/p>\n
    with the application of pre-deposit in case of undue hardship.   The Court <\/p>\n
    then observed that the discretion must be exercised on relevant materials, <\/p>\n
    honesty, bona fide and objectively.\n<\/p>\n
    12.    While considering undue hardship, balance-sheet of a company or of <\/p>\n
    an individual may be one of the relevant factors.  However, at the same time, <\/p>\n
    the Courts  cannot be oblivious  of the  state  of  economy and the  need for <\/p>\n
    companies   to   have   sufficient   liquidity   to   proceed   with   the   business   on <\/p>\n
    industrial activity.   Any burden by way of deposit of resources required to <\/p>\n
    keep   the   business   running   may   have   effect   on   productivity   as   also   on <\/p>\n
    employment.     No   doubt,   these   are   matters   which   a   party   approaching   a <\/p>\n
    Tribunal must be in a position to establish and cannot be based merely on <\/p>\n
    whims or fancies.  The economy therefore is another indicator which could <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
    be considered while applying the test of undue hardship.\n<\/p>\n
    13.    Considering the law as stated above,   a duty is cast on the tribunal <\/p>\n
    after it has considered whether the prima facie case has been made out while <\/p>\n
    considering   the   issue   of   balance   of   convenience   and   irreparable   loss   and <\/p>\n
    injury  to examine the undue hardship as now understood and explained by <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. (supra) and B.M. Malani (supra).  It <\/p>\n
    is no doubt true that while considering the issue of pre deposit, the Tribunal <\/p>\n
    has   a   discretion.   The   application   of   discretion   cannot   be   subject   to   any <\/p>\n
    standards. It would be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal considering the <\/p>\n
    facts of each case by applying the law as declared by the Supreme Court and <\/p>\n
    this Court.  If the party has made out a strong prima facie case, that by itself <\/p>\n
    would be  a strong ground in the matter of exercise of discretion as calling <\/p>\n
    on the party to deposit the amount which prima facie is not liable to deposit <\/p>\n
    or  which  demand has no legs to stand upon, by itself would result in undue <\/p>\n
    hardship if the party is called upon to deposit the amount.\n<\/p>\n
    14.    We may now set out a few relevant facts.   There is a dispute as to <\/p>\n
    whether the petitioner was entitled to credit for duty paid along with the <\/p>\n
    interest.   The petitioner had lost before this Court.   Ultimately the matter <\/p>\n
    was taken to the Supreme Court.   The Supreme Court allowed the appeal <\/p>\n
    filed by the petitioner herein.  As there was no stay granted by the Supreme <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court against the order of this Court, the petitioner had deposited with the <\/p>\n
    authority   the   amount   of   duty   as   referred   to   earlier.     On   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
    succeeding   before   the   Supreme   Court,   they   called   on   the   respondents   to <\/p>\n
    adjust the credit and refund the amount.   The respondents took no action.\n<\/p>\n
    The   petitioner   then   suo   muto   took   credit   of   that   amount.     This   was   the <\/p>\n
    subject matter of the show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
    15.    When the matter reached the Tribunal, the matter was remanded back <\/p>\n
    with a direction to the authority to consider the petitioner’s application for <\/p>\n
    refund as also the show cause notice.   Learned counsel for the petitioner <\/p>\n
    points out that instead of one authority hearing both the issues, the matter <\/p>\n
    pertaining to unjust enrichment was heard by the Assistant Commissioner <\/p>\n
    who rejected the claim of the petitioner.   The issue pertaining to the show <\/p>\n
    cause   notice   was   heard   by   the   Commissioner   who   by   his   order   directed <\/p>\n
    payment of duty along with interest and penalty.  Ultimately, the matter has <\/p>\n
    reached   the   Tribunal   where   the   petitioner   applied   for   stay   in   which   the <\/p>\n
    impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioner to deposit.\n<\/p>\n
    16.    In the  instant case, considering  the provisions  earlier referred to, it <\/p>\n
    would   be   clear   that   the   doctrine   of   unjust   enrichment   would   not   be <\/p>\n
    applicable.  Prima facie, it is a case of refund of duty.  Similarly insofar as the <\/p>\n
    interest   is   concerned,   looking   at   the   language   of   section   11-B   proviso, <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
    interest   paid   by   the   petitioner   could   not   be   the   subject   matter   of   unjust <\/p>\n
    enrichment.\n<\/p>\n
    17.    In these circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner having made out <\/p>\n
    a   strong   prima   facie   case,   calling   upon   the   petitioner   to   deposit   would <\/p>\n
    occasion undue hardship.  The application for waiver of pre-deposit ought to <\/p>\n
    have been considered on that test.\n<\/p>\n
    18.<\/p>\n
           In the light of the above, the following order is passed:\n<\/p>\n
    (i)    The impugned order to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit <\/p>\n
    the duty along with interest in the sum of Rs.66,62,032\/- is set aside.   The <\/p>\n
    petitioner   to   furnish   bond   for   the   said   sum.   Rule   is   made   absolute <\/p>\n
    accordingly with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)   The learned Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    (D.G. KARNIK, J.)                                              (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:58:00 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik 1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6879 OF 2009 CEAT Limited .. Petitioner V\/s The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.B. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCeat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-05T03:02:43+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T03:02:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2670,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T03:02:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 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":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-05T03:02:43+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T03:02:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":2670,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009","name":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T03:02:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ceat-limited-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ceat Limited vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 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\/144090","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=144090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}