MADHAV MAGANLAL & CO. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 1981: "Superintendent, Central Excise and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 259. In Naresh J. Sukhawani vs. ... under Section 108 of the Customs Act must be rejected on the view taken by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Poolpandi ..."

This indicates that the decision in Poolpandi has been explicitly rejected or rejected as bad law in subsequent case law, specifically in the context of the view in Naresh J. Sukhawani.

VIRBHADRA SINGH VS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 1984: "Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors., (1992) 3 SCC 259, rendered by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges ... The Minister of National Revenue, 1948 SCC OnLine PC 65; and Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. ... The decision in Poolpandi and Ors. Vs."

The phrase "rendered by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges" combined with references to other cases suggests that the Poolpandi decision has been critically examined or possibly overruled or distinguished in this context, especially since subsequent references tend to question or differentiate it.

Tata Teleservices VS Union of India - 2016 0 Supreme(Guj) 251: "It is submitted that, therefore, the decision in the case of Poolpandi Versus Superintendent, Central Excise, reported in a href"

The context implies that this case is being discussed in relation to Poolpandi, possibly questioning its validity or applicability, but without explicit language indicating overruling.

Muhammed Asif K. A. VS Sreejith M. - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 237: "Supervising the argument ... in Poolpandi and Others Vs. ... were being made to conclude the investigation by recording the statements of the petitioners while undergoing detention in the Central"

The mention of arguments "being made" suggests ongoing debate or critique but does not explicitly state that Poolpandi has been overruled or rejected.