{"id":179840,"date":"2008-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-14T10:12:59","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T04:42:59","slug":"monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5188 OF 2008\n          (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 1830 of 2007)\n\n\nMonotosh Saha                                  ..Appellant\n\n                            Versus\n\nSpecial Director, Enforcement Directorate\nAnd Anr.                                       ..Respondents\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the<\/p>\n
appeal filed    by the appellant under Section 35 of Foreign<\/p>\n
Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short the `Act’).\n<\/p>\n
3.     Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:<\/p>\n
       Memorandum       was    issued   by     the   Enforcement<\/p>\n
Directorate, Ministry of Finance. On         the basis of certain<\/p>\n
statements recorded it was indicated therein that M\/s<\/p>\n
Godsons (India)     and its proprietor, the present appellant<\/p>\n
had acquired foreign exchange contravening the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in<\/p>\n
short the `Foreign Exchange Act’) thereby rendering him liable<\/p>\n
to be proceeded under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange<\/p>\n
Act.    The memorandum was issued under Rule 3 of the<\/p>\n
Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 (in short<\/p>\n
`Adjudication Rules’). The reply to the show cause notice was<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant. The Special Director, of Foreign<\/p>\n
Exchange Act passed an order on 13th May, 2005 imposing<\/p>\n
penalty of Rs.25 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant<\/p>\n
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (Foreign<\/p>\n
Exchange) (in short the `Tribunal’) and filed an application for<\/p>\n
dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. By order<\/p>\n
dated 7.3.2006 the Tribunal passed an order directing deposit<\/p>\n
of 60% of the penalty amount for the purpose of entertaining<\/p>\n
                                                              2<\/span>
\nthe appeal. An appeal was filed under Section 35 of the Act<\/p>\n
which came to be dismissed by the High Court holding that no<\/p>\n
case for hardship was made out either before the Tribunal or<\/p>\n
before it and, therefore, there was no scope of interference<\/p>\n
with the order of the Tribunal. However, time permitting the<\/p>\n
deposit was extended.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submitted that a case for dispensing with pre-<\/p>\n
deposit was made out. In any event, in compliance with this<\/p>\n
Court’s   interim   order   dated   5.2.2007   the   amount       of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,00,000\/- has been deposited with the concerned<\/p>\n
Directorate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand<\/p>\n
submitted that the appellant did not make out a case for<\/p>\n
dispensing with pre-deposit and, therefore, the order of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court does not suffer from<\/p>\n
any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              3<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Principles relating to grant of stay pending disposal of<\/p>\n
the   matters   before   the   concerned   forums   have   been<\/p>\n
considered in several cases. It is to be noted that in such<\/p>\n
matters though discretion is available, the same has to be<\/p>\n
exercised judicially.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    The applicable principles have been set out succinctly in<\/p>\n
Silliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors. (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
1984 SC 653) and M\/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. S.<\/p>\n
Samuel and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 61) and Assistant Collector of<\/p>\n
Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 330).<\/p>\n
8.    It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case,<\/p>\n
interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a<\/p>\n
cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to<\/p>\n
stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay<\/p>\n
full or substantive part of the demand.      Petitions for stay<\/p>\n
should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the<\/p>\n
consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to<\/p>\n
deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of<\/p>\n
                                                            4<\/span>
\nuniversal application in such matters and the order has to be<\/p>\n
passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely<\/p>\n
because this Court has indicated the principles that does not<\/p>\n
give a license to the forum\/authority to pass an order which<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality<\/p>\n
and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to<\/p>\n
public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake<\/p>\n
citizens’ faith in the impartiality of public administration,<\/p>\n
interim relief can be given.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    It has become an unfortunate trend to casually dispose<\/p>\n
of stay applications by referring to decisions in Siliguri<\/p>\n
Municipality   and    Dunlop    India   cases   (supra)   without<\/p>\n
analysing factual scenario involved in a particular case.<\/p>\n
10.   Section 19 of the Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n
           “19(1). Save as provided in sub-section (2), the
\n           Central Government or any person aggrieved
\n           by an order made by an Adjudicating
\n           Authority, other than those referred to in sub-
\n           section (1) of section 17, or the Special
\n           Director (Appeals), may prefer an appeal to the
\n           Appellate Tribunal :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
          Provided that any person appealing against
\n          the order of the Adjudicating Authority or the
\n          Special Director (Appeals) levying any penalty,
\n          shall while filing the appeal, deposit the
\n          amount of such penalty with such authority as
\n          may be notified by the Central Government:<\/p>\n
          Provided further that where in any particular
\n          case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion
\n          that the deposit of such penalty would cause
\n          undue hardship to such person, the Appellate
\n          Tribunal may dispense with such deposit
\n          subject to such conditions as it may deem fit
\n          to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of
\n          penalty.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   Two significant expressions used in the provisions are<\/p>\n
“undue   hardship      to   such   person”   and   “safeguard   the<\/p>\n
realization of penalty”.      Therefore, while dealing with the<\/p>\n
application     twin   requirements     of   considerations     i.e.<\/p>\n
consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of<\/p>\n
conditions to safeguard the realization of penalty have to be<\/p>\n
kept in view.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   As noted above there are two important expressions in<\/p>\n
Section 19(1). One is undue hardship. This is a matter within<\/p>\n
                                                                6<\/span>
\nthe special knowledge of the applicant for waiver and has to be<\/p>\n
established by him. A mere assertion about undue hardship<\/p>\n
would not be sufficient.     It was noted by this Court in S.<\/p>\n
Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 923)<\/p>\n
that under Indian conditions expression “Undue hardship” is<\/p>\n
normally related to economic hardship. “Undue” which means<\/p>\n
something which is not merited by the conduct of the<\/p>\n
claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it. Undue<\/p>\n
hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the<\/p>\n
circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   For a hardship to be `undue’ it must be shown that the<\/p>\n
particular   burden   to   have   to   observe   or   perform   the<\/p>\n
requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the<\/p>\n
requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would<\/p>\n
derive from compliance with it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   The word “undue” adds something more than just<\/p>\n
hardship.    It means an excessive hardship or a hardship<\/p>\n
greater than the circumstances warrant.<\/p>\n
                                                                7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
15.   The other aspect relates to imposition of condition to<\/p>\n
safeguard the realization of penalty. This is an aspect which<\/p>\n
the Tribunal has to bring into focus. It is for the Tribunal to<\/p>\n
impose such conditions as are deemed proper to safeguard the<\/p>\n
realization of penalty.   Therefore, the Tribunal while dealing<\/p>\n
with the application has to consider materials to be placed by<\/p>\n
the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate<\/p>\n
condition as required to safeguard the realization of penalty.<\/p>\n
16.   The above position was highlighted in Benara Valves Ltd.<\/p>\n
and Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Anr.<\/a> (2006<\/p>\n
(13) SCC 347).     The decision was rendered in relation to<\/p>\n
Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where also<\/p>\n
identical stipulations exist.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   In the instant case Tribunal has rightly observed that the<\/p>\n
rival stands have to be examined in detail with reference to<\/p>\n
material on record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
18.   The only other question that needs to be examined is<\/p>\n
whether any reduction of the amounts to be deposited as<\/p>\n
directed by the Tribunal is called for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   Undisputedly the appellant had deposited the amount<\/p>\n
which was directed to be deposited. However, for the balance<\/p>\n
amount demanded with a view to safeguard the realization of<\/p>\n
penalty the appellant shall furnish such security as may be<\/p>\n
stipulated by the Tribunal. On that being done, the appeal<\/p>\n
shall be heard without requiring further deposit if the appeal<\/p>\n
is otherwise free from defect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   The appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                 ……………………………………J.
\n                                 (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                 …………………………………….J.
\n                                 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
\nNew Delhi,
\nAugust 21, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5188 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 1830 of 2007) Monotosh Saha ..Appellant Versus Special Director, Enforcement Directorate […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMonotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - 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\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-14T04:42:59+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T04:42:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1302,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T04:42:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - 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\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-14T04:42:59+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T04:42:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008"},"wordCount":1302,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008","name":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T04:42:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monotosh-saha-vs-spl-directorenforcement-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Monotosh Saha vs Spl.Director,Enforcement … on 21 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/179840","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=179840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}