2007 (8) TMI 635 - HC - FEMA

Non-compliance of pre-deposit order - Held that - In the Instant case, as contended, the entire case of the Petitioner is that the appeal was dismissed for failure of pre-deposit even though the Petitioner had moved an application for recalling the order of pre-deposit and which application was pending before the Tribunal before the impugned order was passed dismissing the appeal for failure of pre-deposit. Considering that the Tribunal has power to review, in our opinion, this will not be a fit case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction. It will be open to the Petitioner to apply to the Tribunal for review of the order according to law. The respondents for the period of eight weeks from today, not to execute the order.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to appellate Tribunal's order based on non-compliance of pre-deposit order, application for modification of the order, consideration of pending application for recalling the order, inherent power of procedural review by courts and Tribunals, power of review conferred on the Tribunal under FEMA Act, 1999.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged an order by the appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, which dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order. The petitioner had applied for modification of the order, which was dismissed and challenged earlier. The main contention was that the appeal was disposed of without considering the pending application for recalling the pre-deposit order dated 30-3-2005.

The court deliberated on the inherent power of procedural review by courts and Tribunals, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The court emphasized that there is inherent or incidental power for procedural review in courts and Tribunals to ensure justice. The power to review decisions was specifically conferred on the Tribunal under Section 28(2)(f) of the FEMA Act, 1999.

Considering the petitioner's argument that the appeal was dismissed without considering the pending application for recalling the pre-deposit order, the court held that since the Tribunal has the power to review, it was not appropriate for the court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The court ruled that the petitioner could apply to the Tribunal for a review of the order according to the law. The respondents were restrained from executing the order for a specified period.

In conclusion, the court discharged the rule and made no order as to costs, emphasizing the Tribunal's power to review its decisions under the FEMA Act, 1999.