AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 217 wordsKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J.—This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in not considering the acute financial hardship as mentioned in the application?
(2) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in only considering the prima facie case while dealing with the application for waiver of pre-deposit?
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We notice that the learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis of prima facie case alone. We feel that prima facie case is one of the factors in dealing with the application for waiver of pre-deposit. According to us, the learned Tribunal has to consider the financial hardship also. Before us, some material has been produced in support of acute financial hardship. However, the said material was not produced before the learned Tribunal. We therefore, set aside the order and judgment of the learned Tribunal and direct the learned Tribunal to decide the issue of financial hardship by considering the material produced before us, which may be produced before the learned Tribunal, and pass appropriate orders. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
