9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply [1969 (3) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Also see Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. Vs. Dominion of India & Ors (1984 (3) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT) Therefore this Court feels that it would have been more appropriate for the Tribunal in the facts of the case to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to amend his appeal so as to challenge the order passed on the review application or else to file a separate appeal ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Act of 1948' only against the order dated 2nd February, 1999. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of the said appeal. In the delay condonation application, the facts pertaining to filing of the first review application and the order passed therein, filing of the writ petition for disposal of the review application and the fact pertaining to filing of second review application were disclosed. It was specifically stated before the Tribunal that the orders passed on the review application are not under challenge and therefore the merits of the order rejecting the first review application dated 9th January, 2002 cannot be legally considered, as it would amount to disposal of appeal against the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 SC, 429, wherein it has been held that principle of merger does not apply in the matter of review. So far as second reason assigned in the order of the Tribunal is concerned, he submits that the order dated 2nd February, 1999 should have been examined on merits and if required one opportunity to amend the relief clause so as to challenge the order dated 9th January, 2002 passed on review application should have been afforded if the Tribunal was of the view that appeal cannot proceed in absence of the challenge to the review order. The first reason disclosed by the Tribunal may not detain the Court for long, inasmuch as the general principle of merger may not be strictly applicable in the matter of decision on review application. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "If the application of a unit is rejected such unit may submit an application for review to the same Committee, within 30 days of the receipt of information of such rejection. The said Committee after examining the relevant records and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the unit of being heard, shall decide the review application." On simple reading of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that the power conferred under Rule 25 is a very wide power and practically amounts to reconsideration of orders on merits as well as on the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing. The power conferred under Rule 25, Sub-clause 3(c) is para materia to the main power to decide the exemption application and is wide enough to re-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the review application by means of a reasoned order. This Court may further record that the Tribunal appears to be justified in recording the minimum expected required from the appellant was to challenge the review order along with the main order rejecting the execution application. Both should have been challenged either in the same appeal or by filing two separate appeals. If the review order is not challenged, which is a reasoned order and has been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing and only the first order rejecting the exemption application is set aside in the appeal, it may result into a situation where the appellate order and the order of rejection of review application on merits passed after affording of opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for want of challenge to the order dated 9th January, 2002, this Court feels that it would have been more appropriate for the Tribunal in the facts of the case to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to amend his appeal so as to challenge the order passed on the review application or else to file a separate appeal against the order whereby the review application had been rejected. Since in the facts of the case there has been no decision on the merits of the appeal by the Tribunal, this Court feels it fit and proper to set aside the last part of the order whereby the appeal has been dismissed finally by directing as follows. The petitioner is directed to make an amendment application for including the prayer for quashing of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
