(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.6 OF 2008 IN FERA APPEAL NO.77 OF 2007 Jayantilal Harakchand & Co. & Ors...Appellants Vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M. Nedumpara with Mr. Vikas K. Mahangare, for the Appellants. Mr. R.V. Desai with Mr. P.S. Jetly and Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks review of the order dated 26th October, 2007. It is firstly his contention that FERA Appeal No.77 of 207 as filed was in respect of 3 Appeals being Appeal No.485/05, 486/05 and 487/05. It is then contended that in so far as dismissal of the Appeal on the ground of failure to pre-deposit, consequent to FERA being repealed and FEMA being enacted the Appeal had to be disposed of in terms of the provisions of FEMA. The scheme is different and does not permit dismissal for failure to pre-deposit.. 2. When the matter was argued before us firstly it was not contended and it could not have been (-2-) contended that the Appeal filed was a combined Appeal in respect of three different appeals. This is neither permissible in law nor under the procedure of this Court. Even otherwise we had asked the learned Counsel as to which Appeal he wants to elect to be considered in the review petition out of the three Appeals. Learned Counsel chose to keep silent over the matter. While the order was being dictated he now states that he is electing for consideration of Appeal as an Appeal from Appeal No.486 of 2005 as numbered before the Tribunal and the Review Petition be considered ccordingly. . On behalf of the Respondent learned Counsel states that none of these points was urged when the matter was argued and the Review Applicant should not be allowed to raise the points not raised. The matter proceeded on the footing that the appeal was against an order of non-deposit. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. As the Counsel has elected to consider the Appeal as an Appeal against the order passed in Appeal No.486 of 2005 we shall consider the Review accordingly. We shall, therefore, address ourselves accordingly. (-3-) 4. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the common order dated 27th July, 2006 passed in Appeal Nos. 485 TO 487 OF 2005. From the said order we find the following:- "So far as partners are concerned, a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs has been imposed against each partner." Appeal No.486 of 2005 was by a Partner. It is, therefore, clear that even in this case the penalty was imposed and the contention urged before the Court that there was no order of penalty, is contrary to the record. 5. The other contention was that the Appeal shall be considered under FEMA. This contention was not raised when the matter was argued before us. Once that contention was not raised nor argued it cannot be a ground for review. 6. Consequently Review Petition dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)