Review jurisdiction after recall of a foundational judgment allowed recall of an earlier order and restoration of appeals on merits.

Delay in filing review applications was condoned because the applications were presented after the Supreme Court recalled the judgment on which the Tribunal's earlier order had rested, and the sequence of events showed sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that its prior common order, passed with liberty to seek review if the Supreme Court decision was recalled, could be reviewed and recalled once that recall occurred, since the earlier disposal had not determined the merits. It also ruled that an incorrect statutory reference in some review applications did not defeat maintainability where the substance clearly invoked review jurisdiction and the Tribunal otherwise had power to act. The earlier order was recalled and the appeals restored for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the review applications deserved to be condoned; (ii) whether the earlier common order, which had been passed in the light of the earlier Supreme Court decision and with liberty to seek review if that decision was recalled, could be reviewed and recalled after the recall order of the Supreme Court; and (iii) whether mention of an incorrect statutory provision in some review applications could defeat maintainability.

Issue (i): whether the delay in filing the review applications deserved to be condoned.

Analysis: The applications were filed after the Supreme Court recalled the earlier judgment on which the Tribunal's order had rested, and the Tribunal treated the delay as explained by the sequence of events and the administrative processing of the applications. The Tribunal applied the settled approach that limitation should not defeat adjudication on merits where a sufficient cause is shown, particularly when the applicants were acting on the liberty earlier reserved and the review was sought promptly after the recall order.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the review applicants.

Issue (ii): whether the earlier common order, which had been passed in the light of the earlier Supreme Court decision and with liberty to seek review if that decision was recalled, could be reviewed and recalled after the recall order of the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's recall order in Ganpati Dealcom was not to be read down as confined only to one aspect of the earlier judgment for the purpose of the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. It found that its own earlier disposal had been based on the recalled judgment and had not decided the merits of the appeals. The Tribunal further held that it could not treat the Supreme Court's recall order as lacking effect or as per incuriam, and that refusing review would create inconsistency and possible discrimination if the Supreme Court later takes a different final view on the substantive benami issue. The Tribunal therefore treated the review as maintainable and necessary to restore the appeals for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The review applications were maintainable and the earlier order was recalled in favour of the review applicants.

Issue (iii): whether mention of an incorrect statutory provision in some review applications could defeat maintainability.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the substance of the prayer and the existence of review power were determinative. A wrong or missing provision number does not vitiate an where the Tribunal otherwise has jurisdiction and the contents clearly seek review of the order. The applications, in substance, invoked the Tribunal's review power and were supported by the liberty earlier granted and the Supreme Court's recall order.

Conclusion: The incorrect reference to a provision did not defeat the review applications.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowed the review applications, recalled the earlier order, and restored the appeals to their original numbers for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal's earlier order was passed by relying on a judgment that is subsequently recalled by the Supreme Court, and the earlier order itself reserved liberty to seek review, the tribunal may recall its order and restore the matter, and a wrong statutory reference in the review application does not defeat jurisdiction when the substantive prayer is for review.

---