9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal passed the order dated 06.08 .2015, there was no decision of Gujarat High Court. But, subsequently Gujarat High Court in its decision in the case of Colourtex Industries Ltd., V. Union of India, reported at 2016 (332) E.L.T. 109 (GUJ.) has taken a view, that if the matter is referred to larger Bench, unconditional stay deserves to be granted. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid can be termed as 'change in the circumstances' enabling the Tribunal to consider the application f or modification. He contended that the Tribunal in the order dated 06.08.2015 had taken a note of the order date d 25.03.2015 passed by Madras High Court. But, when the Tribunal passed the order on 06.08.2015, Madras High Court had taken the another view i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because Gujarat High Court has taken a different view subsequently in the case of Colourtex Industries Ltd., (supra), it cannot be said that there is any valid ground for review or rectification/modification of the earlier order. 7. It is hardly required to be stated that in order to give sanctity to the order passed by the judicial forum, interim order, though may not operate for all time to come, but once interim order is passed, unless there is change in the circumstances, the judicial forum cannot modify or review its own order. Such change in the circumstances should be the circumstances rather more on facts. 8. So far as appellant is concerned, for a period of about nine months though the order has operated, no deposit is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant should be saddled with the cost for wasting of public time for about 45 minutes. Considering the f acts and circumstances, the amount to be deposited being Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs only), as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, which has been delayed for such a long period, we find that the appropriate cost should be Rs. 20,000/- and the appellant be directed to deposit the said amount with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of the poor litigants. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- and the appellant shall deposit the cost within two weeks period from today with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 8. Upon receipt produced the condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
