2017 (2) TMI 473 - HC - Customs

Modification of interim order - Held that - in order to give sanctity to the order passed by the judicial forum, interim order, though may not operate for all time to come, but once interim order is passed, unless there is change in the circumstances, the judicial forum cannot modify or review its own order. Such change in the circumstances should be the circumstances rather more on facts. Subsequent change in law, in our opinion cannot be said to be a valid ground for modification of the earlier interim order, which is accepted by the parties and remained challenged before any forum. Even in the p resent appeal also, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 06.08.2015 but the challenge is to subsequent order, whereby, the application for modification was rejected - we do not find that the Tribunal having committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. The litigation appears to be a frivolous litigation to delay the recovery of the revenue. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the first conditional order for deposit of 50%, nothing prevented the appellant to approach the higher forum. The appellant has merrily enjoyed the time. The application filed for modification has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal - application for modification rejected - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interim order modification based on change in case law validity.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application for modification of an interim order by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that subsequent decisions by the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court constituted a change in circumstances, warranting a review of the interim order. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have granted an unconditional stay based on these changes. However, the Tribunal found no change in circumstances and rejected the modification application. The appellant accepted the original order but sought modification after nine months, seeking an unconditional stay. The court questioned whether a subsequent change in case law could be a valid ground for reviewing an interim order, to which the appellant's counsel answered in the negative. The court held that the mere fact that the Gujarat High Court had a different view in a subsequent case did not justify a review or modification of the original order.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of judicial orders and highlighted that unless there was a significant change in circumstances, a judicial forum should not modify or review its own order. The court noted that no deposit had been made by the appellant during the nine-month period the original order was in effect. The court concluded that a subsequent change in law was not a valid ground for modifying the original order, especially when the parties had accepted it and not challenged it before any forum. The court clarified that the appeal was not challenging the original order but the rejection of the modification application.

The court further stated that the appeal should be limited to a question of law and that the Tribunal's exercise of judicial discretion was not erroneous. The court characterized the litigation as frivolous, aimed at delaying revenue recovery, and criticized the appellant for not approaching a higher forum if dissatisfied with the original order. Consequently, the court imposed a cost of ?20,000 on the appellant for wasting public time and directed the appellant to deposit the amount with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of poor litigants within two weeks. The appeal was dismissed, and failure to deposit the cost would lead to appropriate action. Additionally, a related application was disposed of in light of the appeal's dismissal.