TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of an appeal, a revision is always creation of a Statute. There is no inherent power vesting in any appellate authority or superior authority to exercise the power of revision. Moreover, the remedy of revision is never as matter of right. Mimansa principles will not revive a nonexisting remedy of revision. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant based on Mimansa principles. Even if we apply Mimansa principles, it is impossible to accept the submission that a remedy of revision under the repealed Act was available to the appellant. Hence, we see no merit in the appeals. Appeals and Civil Applications are dismissed. - Fema Appeal No. 4-5 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Parag Vyas a/w. Mr. D. P. Singh and Mr. Pranil Sonawane for the appellant Mr. B. Sheshagopalan i/b. Mr. Sachin S. Padaye, Mr. Arun Mehta a/w. Ms. Sampada Khanolkar i/b. Aksar Law for the respondent JUDGMENT ( Per A. S. Oka, J. ) 1. The submissions of the learned counsel were heard on the earlier date. For the sake of convenience, with a view to understand the controversy, we refer to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f FEMA allows the Competent Court to take cognizance of an offence under FERA and an Adjudicating Officer to take notice of any contravention under Section 51 of FERA, provided cognizance or notice, as the case may be, is taken within a period of two years from the date on which FERA is repealed and FEMA came into force. He pointed out that an action was initiated against the respondents on the basis of the memorandum dated 31st May 2002 and the order of adjudication was made on 17th June 2010. Inviting our attention to Sub-Section (5) of section 49 of FEMA, he pointed out that any appeal pending before the Appellate Board under FERA on the date of repeal of FERA is required to be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA. He pointed out that the very fact that Sub-Section (3) of Section 49 of FEMA permits an action to be taken on account of violation of FERA within a period of two years from the date of its repeal shows that even the remedy of a revision under Sub-Section (4) of Section 52 of FERA is protected. He also relied upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short General Clauses Act ). He submitted that Sub-Section (6) of Section 49 of FEMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) shall stand dissolved. (2) On the dissolution of the said Appellate Board, the person appointed as Chairman of the Appellate Board and every other person appointed as Member and holding office as such immediately before such date shall vacate their respective offices and no such Chairman or other person shall be entitled to claim any compensation for the premature termination of the term of his office or of any contract of service. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under section 51 of the repealed Act after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act. (4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) all offences committed under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed. (5) Notwithstanding such repeal, ( a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions conferring revisional jurisdiction on a superior Court are not treated as conferring a right of revision on the litigant. Revisional jurisdiction is treated as supervisory jurisdiction with power of superintendence to be exercised in the discretion of the Superior Court. That is why Sub-Section (1) of section 34 provides that an appeal shall lie from a decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes to a Bench of two Judges of the said Court but Sub-Section (4) of the same section (like section 115 of the CPC) does not say that a revision shall lie from an order of the Small Causes Court. Section 34(4), like section 115 of Civil Procedure Code merely enables the superior Court to call for the record of a subordinate Court and make such orders in the case as the revisional Court thinks fit in cases of error of the nature contemplated under the provision and subject to other limitations contained in the provision. Even though the revisional power of the High Court may be exercised either suo motu or when a jurisdiction is invoked by a litigant, nevertheless, revisional jurisdiction is quite different in quality, content and nature from appellate jurisdiction. While a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision before the commencement of FEMA, within 60 days from the date of commencement, an appeal can be filed in this Court. The appeal provided under the FERA which is protected under clause (c) is an appeal against the order passed prior to the repeal of FERA. Therefore, Sub-Section (5) of Section 49 deals with two situations on the date of repeal of FERA. One is of a pending appeal before the Appellate Board under the repealed Act and the other is of an order made under repealed Act which is not appealed against till the date of repeal. The legislature in its wisdom has not chosen to make any such provision concerning the remedy of revision. 12. Under Sub-Section (6) of Section 49 of FEMA, it is provided that mentioning of particular matters in Sub-Sections (2), (4) and (5) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. On this aspect, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop Housing Society (supra) wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the amendment carried out to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 by the Act 46 of 1999. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by FEMA by providing for its transfer to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA, the Legislature has not chosen to save even the pending revision applications. In a case where adjudication is initiated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 49 after the repeal of FERA, the remedy of an appeal against order of adjudication under the repealed Act is not saved. Under FEMA,there is a provision of revision under Sub-Section (6) of Section 19, but the revisional powers have been entrusted to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA and the power is confined to the order of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 16 of FEMA. 14. In these two appeals, Revisional jurisdiction under the FERA was sought to be invoked after the date of its repeal. For the reasons which are recorded above, we concur with the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Appellate Tribunal that the Revision Applications preferred by the Appellant were not maintainable. 15. One argument which remains to be dealt with is based on Mimansa principles referred by the Apex Court in its two decisions. In the facts of the present case, the appellant is not without a remedy in the sense that a recourse can be taken to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
