2007 (8) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtraordinary 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.
F.I. Rebello and J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Shri S.U. Kamdar with N.M. Shah, for the Petitioner. Shri A.S. Rao with Rajendra Kumar, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Rule : Heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has approached this court to challenge the order dated 22-3-2007 passed by the appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. By that order the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit order dated 30-3-2005. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 30-3-2005 had directed the Petitioners to make pre-de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the counsel for the Petitioner herein. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the appeal could not have been disposed of without first considering the application which was pending before the Tribunal for recalling of the order dated 30-3-2005. 4. The first question that we have to consider is whether a court or Tribunal has suo motu or inherent or implied power of procedural review if the said power has not been specifically conferred. In our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra having been concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others, 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 420. We may gainfully reproduce the following observations made in Para 13 : '.. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sions would have the power to apply for recall of an ex parte order. At this stage we may consider the judgment cited on behalf of the respondents in Baron International Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 (163) E.L.T. 150 (Bom.). There the issue pertained to modification of the order. The learned Tribunal held that there was no power to CEGAT to review its order and the modification can only be asked in the event of change of circumstances. This observations would be in the context of substantive review and not procedural review considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank (supra). In so far as a case where an interim order is passed, after hearing the parties, that order can be modified only in the event there is a change in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X