TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the order directing handover of possession was a consent order and therefore immune from review; (ii) whether the review application was barred by limitation or could be entertained to revoke the earlier order; (iii) whether the question of power to direct delivery of possession could be decided at the interim stage.
Issue (i): whether the order directing handover of possession was a consent order and therefore immune from review.
Analysis: The order of 13.09.2007 recorded that the parties had been heard and that the complainant undertook to furnish a fresh SSI certificate, after which the respondent was directed to hand over possession. The recorded terms did not show that the direction to deliver possession was made by consent of the respondents' advocates. The earlier order therefore could not be treated as a consent order.
Conclusion: The contention that the order was a consent order was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the review application was barred by limitation or could be entertained to revoke the earlier order.
Analysis: Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act empowered the Commission to amend or revoke any order at any time in the manner in which it was made. The expression 'at any time' was treated as excluding a prescribed limitation period for such revocation. The earlier direction was also characterised as an interim order capable of modification or recall before final adjudication.
Conclusion: The review application was held to be entertainable and not barred by limitation.
Issue (iii): whether the question of power to direct delivery of possession could be decided at the interim stage.
Analysis: The challenge based on want of jurisdiction to order delivery of possession was not decided on merits because the impugned order itself treated that question as one for final adjudication. The Court declined to pronounce on that issue in the special leave proceedings.
Conclusion: The question was left open for decision at the stage of final adjudication.
Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the orders under challenge, and the special leave petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to amend or revoke an order 'at any time' permits recall of an interim order without a separate limitation bar, and a direction not shown to be consensual is not protected from such review.
TaxTMI 
