TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9and 20 of the order dated 30.07.2021 and/or to clarify the same, as such observations are prone to be misconstrued and may result in a miscarriage of justice being contrary to several judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, clearly laying down the ratio decideni that neither have the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA revived after having been declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 1. 2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner says it is an application not for recalling of the order but of observations made in para nos.19 and 20 of the bail order. 3. Paras 19 and 20 of the order dated 30.07.2021 passed in BAIL APPLN.112/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code...... It is argued there is no parallel provision to Section 482 Cr.P.C. and secondly Section 362 Cr.P.C. shall not limit the civil powers existed in Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is argued bail order is not a final order but an interlocutory one and the petitioner is seeking only recalling of the observations in the order. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey 2019 SCC Online SC 17116 wherein it was held: "45. But the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is fallacious for two reasons. The firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault." 7. And Usman Bhai Daud Bhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 922 wherein the Court held it cannot be doubted that the grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order. 8. Heard. 9. At the outset I may say the order dated 30.07.2021 does not require any clarification as the analogy of para No.19 and 20 flows from paras 14 to 18 of the said order. 10. Even otherwise, the reliance placed by the applicant/petitioner on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786 as well as State of Punjab vs. Davinde....