Soumen Sen, Ravi Krishan Kapur,J. - (1.) This application for review appears to have been necessitated by reason of the fact that we had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.84,08,000/- by bank draft and/or banker's cheque on or before 31st July, 2019 instead of bank guarantee as security deposit in terms of Article 7 of the Contract which has since been terminated.
(2.) The said order of termination is under challenge.
(3.) Mr. Prabal Kumar Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel in support of the submission, has relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors. reported at (2010) 9 SCC 437 and a Single Bench judgment in Bombay High Court in Madhaw Structural Engineering Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd reported at 2013 SCC Online Bom 134: (2013) 2 Mah LJ 372. In Kalabharati (supra) in paragraph 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that review in absence of statutory provisions are impermissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding the power of the Municipal Corporation to recall or review its earlier order. It was held that the corporation could not pass an order recalling the order passed by it earlier and reviewing the same without assining any reason. It was noticed that no provision for review under the statute could be placed before the Supreme court. The ratio of the decision appears to be that the court cannot confer the jurisdiction upon the authority which it does not possess. Conferring jurisdiction upon a court/tribunal/ authority is a legislative function and the same cannot be conferred either by the court or by the consent of the parties. Moreover, it is trite law that a tribunal or a statutory body cannot act beyond the power conferred upon it by a statute unlike a civil court as a tribunal does not possess any plenary power in relation to civil matters.;