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

hvn
44/195
COAPPL41.12
“12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so
permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of
judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act
granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review
could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires,
illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v.
Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Anr. MANU/SC/0287/1964 :
AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and Ors”
49. The CLB has dealt with the issue of Review raised by the appellant in
the impugned order in Paragraphs 25, 28 and 34. para 34 of the impugned
order as under :
“ The Applicant has rightly contended that what it is seeking
in Application 85 is modification/variation/vacation of an ad interim
order dated 21.05.2012 given in C.A. 73/2012 which was not
disposed off when this ad interim order was given and further that
this ad interim order was given till further orders.
Variation/modification/Vacation of an ad interim order of CLB in a
Company Application/Company Petition can by no stretch of
imagination be called review of CLB's orders. It has also been
correctly pointed out that this order was till further orders in this
matter which can in all events be considered for
Vacation/modification/Variation depending upon the facts and
circumstances of a case. Considering the facts and circumstances of
this case, in view of the final hearing of Applications in this mater
and perusing of further affidavits clarifying the parties contentions
before the higher courts, I find no reason for not considering the
Applicant's prayer for modification/Vacation of the ad interim given
till further orders.”
50. The question that arises for consideration of this court is whether the
impugned order passed by CLB on 13 th August, 2012 in Company Application
(85 of 2012) is in the nature of review of its earlier order dated 21 st May, 2012
and if it is in the nature of review, whether CLB has power to review its