2017 (10) TMI 908

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned order dated 5th July, 2016 the Tribunal did not discuss the prima-facie case which were initial ingredient for deciding the Stay Application. The judgments have also not been properly discussed and it has wrongly come to the conclusion that the said judgments are applicable to the present case. The various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Applicant. 2. We have gone through the impugned order dated 16th July, 2016 where in the application for Stay was decided. It appears to us that in the said order all the aspects raised by the parties have been discussed. The relevant aspect of Para- 9, 10, 11 and 12 are as under: "9. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Advocate for the applicants/appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and the case laws, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met, if the appellant company is directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) out of the amount of total penalty imposed against it and rest of the appellants in Appeal No. 28 and 29 of 2014 are directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) each out of the amount of total penalty imposed against them through the Impugned Order within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and all the applicants/appellants further furnish reliable security for 20% of the amount of total penalty imposed against each of the applicants/appellants within the same period. 12. The applications for stay and waiver from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts have no intention to deposit the same. 5. We are of the view that the review application filed by the appellant/review applicant is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record on the order passed by this court and is trying to re-argue its case as if it was an appeal which is beyond the scope of the Order XLVLL Rule 1 CPC and as such the review application is liable to be dismissed. The Apex Court in the case of K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 164 in Para 17 was pleased to hold that an application for review cannot be entertained only for the purpose of rehearing of the case. The Apex Court further held in the case of The State of West Bengal and Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X