Jer Rutton Kavasmneck alias Jer Jawahar Thandi - Bombay High ...

hvn
38/195
COAPPL41.12
Application (85 of 2012) was thus not maintainable and thus injunction order
dated 21 st May, 2012 could not have been vacated by the CLB. It is submitted
that under the guise of clarification or modification one can not seek review.
The learned counsel submits that notwithstanding that the appellant had
contended that the order was an ad interim order, the fact remains that the
respondents did not agree with that interpretation of the appellants. It is
submitted that the nature of the order dated 21 st May, 2012 has to be
ascertained on the perusal of the order itself. From the reading of the order, it
clearly states that the order of 21 st May, 2012 was not ad interim order but
was interim order disposing of the application regarding injunction. The only
new event was that the impugned meeting had now been held. It is submitted
that merely because meeting was held would not entitle the respondents to
seek vacation/modification/review of the order dated 21 st May, 2012. The CLB
had already considered possibility of the resolution being passed.
42. Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand submits as under :
(a) The power of review is vested in civil courts by section 114
and order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to final
decrees/orders passed under the Code. The order sought to be reviewed must
have finally disposed of the case. No review is permissible under the Criminal
Procedure Code. Variation, modification or vacation of interim order does