TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Bench, which led the Board to exercise its inherent powers to recall/review its earlier orders are against the record and not sustainable. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [1970 (3) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT] , the Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implications. Thus, the power of review was in fact contained in the Company Law Board Regulations, 1975 as Rule 45 and was incorporated in the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, as Regulation 27. However, in 1992, this regulation was specifically omitted. No provision has been brought to my notice from which it could be gathered that the Board had power to review its own order. If the power of review has been specifically omitted. It is not possible to import the provision of review by taking shelter under Regulation 44 - The inherent powers are inherent by virtue of the Court/Tribunal with the duty to render justice. The inherent jurisdiction can be restored to only when there is no other remedy available to the party. The question of law is decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel, refused to inspect some of the documents available for inspection. 6 . After inspection of the original documents, vide application, CA No.205/2010, the respondents requested for furnishing of the true copies of the documents inspected by them, which was allowed by order dated 08.07.2011 and the matter was thereafter posted on 18.10.2011. 7 . Order dated 18.10.2011 reveals that in the presence of Advocate Mr. Rajarathnam Baddan, a last opportunity of two weeks for filing rejoinder was granted to the respondent. It was made clear that if no rejoinder is filed, the filing of rejoinder will be forfeited. The matter was thereafter posted for 08.02.2012. However, on 08.02.2012, counsel for respondent made an oral prayer for grant of further time to file rejoinder on the ground that the appellants have not given the inspection of the documents. The said prayer was rejected, pointing out that it is on record that the respondent had taken inspection of the documents and keeping that in mind, the Bench had passed the order affording two more weeks for filing of rejoinder. It was specifically mentioned that in failur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew not specifically conferred upon the Company Law Board by the Rules/Regulations statutorily framed, could still be exercised by the Board by restoring to the inherent powers conferred upon it under Regulations 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 ? 12 . It is contented by Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that there is a conscious decision on the part of government, while framing regulations 1992 to omit Regulation 27. Therefore, invoking of the inherent power under regulation 44 to produce the same result that could have been produced by invoking Regulation 27 (omitted) would go against the intent of law maker. It is stated that the Board has no power to review or recall its own order, once the order has been attained finality, the same is not open for change or for variation. It is further submitted that without any basis or pleading the Board has jumped to the conclusion that the order dated 18.10.2011 and 08.02.2012 are based on forged and fabricated documents. 13. Per contra, Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oinder. Instead of filing rejoinder, the respondents asked for inspection of the original documents, 12 in number, by their application/letter dated 11.06.2010. The board by order dated 10.08.2010, directed the appellants herein to produce the original documents mentioned in the letter dated 11.06.2010 from Sl. No. 1 to 6 only and the audit report of the Company from the year 2000 upto the latest before the Bench Officer on or before 31.08.2010. Liberty was given to the respondents to inspect the documents in presence of the Bench Officer. It appears that respondents thereafter filed an application seeking certified copy of the said documents and the Board by order dated 08.07.2011, directed the appellants herein to furnish certified copy of the original documents inspected by the respondents. 18 . As reflected from the said order dated 08.07.2011 that Mr. Ajay Panickar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents. Similarly, on 18.10.2011, Advocate Rajarathnam Baddan appeared for respondents. However, on both the aforesaid dates, no objections or allegations were raised that inspection of all the documents as directed has not been prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations 27 was specifically omitted by the Amendment Regulations of 1992. 23 . Regulation 43 confers power upon the Board to enlarge the time fixed for the performance of any Act or the filing of any document or representation. Regulation 44 confers inherent powers to the Bench to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice to prevent abuse of process of the Bench. Regulation 45 empowers the Board to correct its orders either suo motu or an application by a party, if there are clerical or arithmetical mistake, or any error arising from any accidental slip or omission. 24 . In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844 , the Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implications. Similar view is held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara Vs. Steelco Gujrat Ltd. (2003) 12 SCC 732. 25 . In Budhia Swain and others Vs. Gopinath Deb and others (1999) 4 SCC 396 the Supreme Court has held :- 8. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
