9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of crime by the ED, is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that closure report having been filed, the same would constitute a sufficient reason within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for this Tribunal to review its earlier decision. This Tribunal is empowered to confirm, modify or set-aside the order appealed under Section 26(4) of the Act. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eview its own order:- a) Discovery of new or important matter or evidence which the applicant could not produce at the time of initial decision despite exercise of due diligence, or the same was not within his knowledge; or b) The order to be reviewed suffers from some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or c) There exists some other reason, which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is sufficient for reviewing the earlier order/decision. 7. Counsel for the appellant has referred number of decisions, the same are - a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 (See Para 20) has held that the words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted to mean "a reason sufficient on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for an erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result is miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Rohtagi that, as explained hereinabove, the Tribunal can review its order/decision not just on the basis of the error apparent on the face of the record, as stated herein-above, but also based on the discovery of aforesaid new facts, which have come into existence subsequent to filing of the earlier review petition. It is stated by him that in the present case, the twin conditions as provided under Order 38 Rule 5 have not been satisfied. Further, vide the Impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the suit is dismissed. 10. It is stated on behalf of applicant that ED has neither made out a prima facie case nor has the ED been able to satisfy the Court that the Petitioner herein is likely or trying to dispose of the property. Further, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that there were no proceeds of crime and therefore no money laundering, and in such circumstances, there was no occasion for this Tribunal to have provided the ED with any security. Further, the alternate property located at Sekkadu Village, Avadi Taluk, which is a personal property of the Managing Director of the Appellant, had been offered by the Appellant at an interim stage, in order to release the property at Guindy, Chennai due to the sufferi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged by the ED as informed. 16. As far as filing of closure report by CBI is concerned, it is true that the respondent no. 1 has registered ECIR on the basis of allegation made by CBI. The said closure report has not attained finality. Either the appellant should have waited for the same, otherwise what would happen if the report is not accepted by High Court and Supreme Court. No doubt, it is a subsequent event in favour of the appellant but the said event is not final. The respondent no. 1 is claiming independent claim other than the happening of schedule offence. The said controversial issue is sub-judice before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and in the Supreme Court also in other matter. 17. It is also true that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
