{"id":65370,"date":"2008-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-11T19:51:52","modified_gmt":"2019-03-11T14:21:52","slug":"super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8549\/2008\t 7\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.8549 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n===================================================\n \n\nSUPER\nINDUSTRIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM-Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA THRO. SECRETARY, &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n\n=================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR SN THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) :\n1, \nMR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \n===================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n           \n\t\t\tand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\nDate\n: 10\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n\n ORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tpetition challenges orders dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure-C) and<br \/>\n\t06.05.2008 (Annexure-F) whereunder the Customs, Excise and Service<br \/>\n\tTax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CESTAT) directed the petitioner<br \/>\n\tto deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores out of total demand of Rs.4.02<br \/>\n\tcrores within the period specified.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner is principally aggrieved by the second order dated<br \/>\n\t06.05.2008 and the learned advocate for the petitioner has<br \/>\n\tconcentrated and made submissions only in regard to the said order<br \/>\n\tmade by CESTAT. CESTAT had vide order dated 17.12.2007, after<br \/>\n\thearing the parties and recording concession of the learned senior<br \/>\n\tadvocate appearing for the petitioner, as to admitted liability to<br \/>\n\tthe tune of Rs.90 lacs, reduced the total amount payable as<br \/>\n\tpredeposit to the tune of Rs.2 crores in exercise of its<br \/>\n\tdiscretionary powers under Section 35-F of the Central Excise and<br \/>\n\tSalt Act, 1944 (the Act). The petitioner moved a modification<br \/>\n\tapplication requesting the Tribunal to modify its order dated<br \/>\n\t17.12.2007 on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to total<br \/>\n\texemption by virtue of notification on which reliance was placed,<br \/>\n\tnamely, Notification No.6\/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000. CESTAT has<br \/>\n\trejected the said modification application by observing as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S2.\tOn<br \/>\n\tmatter being called today for ascertaining compliance of the above<br \/>\n\torder, the learned Advocate along with Shri Amrish Neema, Advocate<br \/>\n\tsubmits that nothing stands deposited by the applicant. However, our<br \/>\n\tattention has been drawn to modification application seeking<br \/>\n\tmodification of the said Stay Order on the ground that the goods in<br \/>\n\tquestion (apart from the body tanks used for conveyance with<br \/>\n\tcompressed or liquefied gas) stand exempted vide serial No.253 of<br \/>\n\tNotification No.6\/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000. We find that apart from<br \/>\n\tthe fact that the benefit of the said Notification was not claimed<br \/>\n\tby the appellant at the time of hearing of the stay petitions and no<br \/>\n\targuments was advanced at that stage, we have seen the said<br \/>\n\tNotification, in the interest of justice and find that the same<br \/>\n\tstands discussed by the adjudicating authority and the benefit<br \/>\n\tstands denied for the reasons mentioned therein. The detailed<br \/>\n\tsubmission on the said issue an be advanced by the appellant at the<br \/>\n\ttime of final disposal of the appeals. The Commissioner has already<br \/>\n\theld that the benefit of the Notification is not available to the<br \/>\n\tappellant. We do not find any justifiable reason to modify the said<br \/>\n\torder at this stage. We also note that the appellants have not<br \/>\n\tdeposited the admitted duty liability of Rs.90 lakhs. We have<br \/>\n\talready considered the financial position, which in any case is not<br \/>\n\tdisputed by the appellants at this stage. Accordingly, we dismiss<br \/>\n\tthe modification application and in the interest of justice, extend<br \/>\n\tthe period by another four weeks. The matter to come up for<br \/>\n\tascertaining compliance on 9th June, 2008.??\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned<br \/>\n\torder dated 06.05.2008 contending that the Tribunal has erred in not<br \/>\n\tconsidering the merits of the claim of the petitioner being governed<br \/>\n\tby the aforesaid Notification. It is further submitted that once the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was not liable to pay duty by virtue of entry at Sr.<br \/>\n\tNo.253 of the said Notification dated 01.03.2000 any order of<br \/>\n\tpredeposit in exercise of powers under Section 35-F of the Act would<br \/>\n\tbe bad in law considering the fact that this was an issue which went<br \/>\n\tto the root of the controversy. In support of the submissions made<br \/>\n\treliance has been placed on Supreme Court judgment in case of  Benara<br \/>\n\tValves Ltd. &amp; Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise &amp;<br \/>\n\tAnr., (2006) 13 SCC 347 to submit that the concept of undue<br \/>\n\thardship as envisaged by Section 35-F of the Act has to take into<br \/>\n\tconsideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the<br \/>\n\tTribunal is not expected to dispose of a petition for stay in a<br \/>\n\troutine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order<br \/>\n\trequiring an assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. That<br \/>\n\tdenial of interim relief should not be such as to shake a citizen&#8217;s<br \/>\n\tfaith in the impartiality of public administration.\n<\/p>\n<p>On<br \/>\n\tgoing through the extracted portion of the impugned order it is not<br \/>\n\tpossible to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner. Admittedly, as noted by CESTAT, the benefit of the<br \/>\n\tsaid Notification was not pressed into service by the petitioner at<br \/>\n\tthe time of hearing of the stay petition and no arguments were<br \/>\n\tadvanced at that stage. In fact the learned senior advocate<br \/>\n\tappearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal had<br \/>\n\tpartially accepted the demand to the tune of Rs.90 lacs as noted by<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal in its first order dated 17.12.2007, but as noted by<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal in the impugned order dated 06.05.2008 even the<br \/>\n\tadmitted duty liability of Rs.90 lacs had not been paid by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner till the point of time the modification application was<br \/>\n\theard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further noted that in the<br \/>\n\tinterest of justice the Tribunal has gone through the said<br \/>\n\tNotification and recorded a finding that the reasons which have<br \/>\n\tweighed with the adjudicating authority for denying the benefit<br \/>\n\tunder the Notification prima facie do not warrant interference. The<br \/>\n\tTribunal has further noted that the detailed submissions on the said<br \/>\n\tissue can be advanced by the petitioner at the time of final<br \/>\n\tdisposal of the appeals. Holding that there was no justifiable<br \/>\n\treason to modify the earlier order in light of the findings recorded<br \/>\n\tby Commissioner regarding the Notification not being applicable in<br \/>\n\tcase of the petitioner the Tribunal has noted that the financial<br \/>\n\tposition has also been considered by CESTAT.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in case of Benara Valves<br \/>\n\tLtd. &amp; Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise &amp; Anr.<br \/>\n\t(supra) the concept of &#8216;undue hardship&#8217; has been explained in the<br \/>\n\tfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S12.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tAs noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35-F.<br \/>\n\tOne is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge<br \/>\n\tof the applicant for waiver and has to be established by him. A mere<br \/>\n\tassertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noted<br \/>\n\tby this Court in S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka that under Indian<br \/>\n\tconditions expression ?Sundue hardship?? is normally related to<br \/>\n\teconomic hardship. ?SUndue?? which means something which is not<br \/>\n\tmerited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much<br \/>\n\tdisproportionate to it. Undue hardship is caused when the hardship<br \/>\n\tis not warranted by the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tFor<br \/>\n\ta hardship to be ?Sundue?? it must be shown that the particular<br \/>\n\tburden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to<br \/>\n\tthe nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the<br \/>\n\tapplicant would derive from compliance with it.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe<br \/>\n\tword ?Sundue?? adds something more than just hardship. It means an<br \/>\n\texcessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances<br \/>\n\twarrant.??\n<\/p>\n<p>Applying<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid ratio to the facts of the case it becomes apparent<br \/>\n\tthat the impugned order is not one which would result in grave<br \/>\n\tirreparable injury or shake a citizen&#8217;s faith in the impartiality of<br \/>\n\tthe proceedings before the Tribunal merely because the Tribunal has<br \/>\n\tconfirmed its earlier order of granting partial stay of demand.<br \/>\n\tUndue hardship is a matter within the special knowledge<br \/>\n\tof an applicant and has to be established by the applicant. A mere<br \/>\n\tassertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient as held by<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court. Once the subordinate authorities had dealt with the<br \/>\n\tNotification and recorded a finding about non-applicability of the<br \/>\n\tNotification to the facts of the case of the petitioner, if the<br \/>\n\tTribunal agrees with such findings and refuses to intervene, it is<br \/>\n\tnot possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that this<br \/>\n\twould result in undue hardship. Apex Court has, after referring to<br \/>\n\tits earlier decision, categorically observed that under Indian<br \/>\n\tconditions expression ?Sundue hardship?? is normally related to<br \/>\n\teconomic hardship. In the present case the Tribunal has recorded<br \/>\n\tthat the aspect of petitioner&#8217;s financial\u00a0condition has duly<br \/>\n\tbeen considered and has not been disputed by the petitioner. In<br \/>\n\tfact, at the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that<br \/>\n\teven the admitted liability to the tune of Rs.90 lacs has not been<br \/>\n\tdischarged by the petitioner. The concession by the learned<br \/>\n\t Senior Advocate before CESTAT about the petitioner<br \/>\n\tbeing liable to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs itself indicates that<br \/>\n\tpossibly the petitioner is not entitled to total exemption under the<br \/>\n\tNotification. The term ?Spossibly?? is used here bearing in mind<br \/>\n\tthe fact the appeals are yet pending before CESTAT. On facts and in<br \/>\n\tcircumstances of the case, nothing has been pointed out to show that<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order results in an excessive hardship or a hardship<br \/>\n\tgreater than the circumstances warrant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition being devoid of merits is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>[D.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>MEHTA, J]<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.N.DEVANI,<br \/>\nJ]<\/p>\n<p>***<\/p>\n<p>Bhavesh*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8549\/2008 7\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8549 of 2008 =================================================== SUPER INDUSTRIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM-Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA THRO. SECRETARY, &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - 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\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-11T14:21:52+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-11T14:21:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1498,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-11T14:21:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Super vs Union on 10 July, 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":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - 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\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-11T14:21:52+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-11T14:21:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008"},"wordCount":1498,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008","name":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-11T14:21:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/super-vs-union-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Super vs Union on 10 July, 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\/65370","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=65370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}