9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the residence of Shri Ramesh Kumar on 11.10.1995 lying with the department along with the interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs.2,39,286/- as on 27.03.2014 be adjusted towards penalty and the balance amount of the penalty Rs.31,60,714/- imposed on Shri Ramesh Kumar shall be deposited with the department. 3. The two Appellants herein viz Shri Som Nath Sikka and Shri Ramesh Kumar, filed the aforementioned two Appeals in this Tribunal in May, 2014. The two Appellants also filed the Applications for wavier of the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed on them. This Tribunal vide Order dated 23.07.2015 disposed of the Applications with the directions that the recovery of the penalty imposed against the Appellants shall remain stayed during the pendency of the Appeals, provided they deposit 15 percent of the amount of penalties imposed against each of them separately and furnish a reliable security for the balance 85% within 30 days from the date of communication of this Order. 4. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.20551 of 2015 filed by the Appellant Shri Ramesh Kumar, ordered on 15.10.2015 that the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal is reasonable and justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 1[Explanation. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]" 8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that for the Order dated 23.07.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent in support of his arguments cited the following paragraphs of the Judgment dated 10.01.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Kishor Gupta vs Ramesh Chandra Bhatnagar [(2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 635: 2003 SCC Online SC 35] : "6. After the revision was dismissed, the respondent filed an application for review of the order dated 19-1-2001. The appellant therefore filed a revision claiming that a review was not maintainable. That revision was dismissed. A writ petition challenging the order of dismissal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22-3-2001. Both the orders i.e. the order passed in the revision as well as the impugned order, hold that as the review is pending, it should be allowed to take its natural course. In our view, this reasoning cannot be sustained. Once a party decides to challenge an order before a higher forum and his appeal or revision is dismissed by the higher forum on merits, then no question arises for filing a review of the order which has been affirmed by the higher forum. Once the respondent's revision against the order dated 19-1-2001 was dismissed on merits, no question arose of filing a review of the order dated 19- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/ decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier." 11. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The provisions of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC allow for review of the Order dated 23.07.2015 of this Tribunal only if the conditions mentioned in the said provisions of the CPC are satisfied. We observe that the fact that no Prosecution Complaint under FERA was filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar against the Review Petitioner Shri Ramesh Kumar, pre dated the Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2014 and the Appeal proceedings thereupon. Moreover, even the acquittal of the Review Petitioner Shri Som Nath Sikka pre dated the Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2014 and the Appeal proceedings thereupon. Thus there is no discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; vi) The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favor of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases". It has been held that in all circumstances, it would not be necessary for the court to accept the finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and it would be vice-versa. It would all depend on the facts of the case and, therefore, rigidly it cannot be held that as and when prosecution case fails necessarily the adjudication case should also fail. It is when the standard of proof in two proceedings are different." 14. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that in view of the failure to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
