:1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL NO.96 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2010 Hemant A.Tanna ..Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents WITH FERA APPEAL NO.97 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2010 Nilesh N.Mehta ..Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents WITH FERA APPEAL NO.98 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2010 Sushil J.Jagasia ..Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents WITH FERA APPEAL NO.99 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2010 Vinay M.Parikh ..Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.V.M.Doiphode i/b. V.M.Doiphode & Co. for appellant. Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.V.Mehta for respondents. :2: CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & S.J.KATHAWALLA,JJ. DATE :- 15TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused appeals. 2. All these appeals are directed against the orders dated 19th January, 2009 and 28th August, 2009 arising from the appeals bearing No.455 of 2003, 457 of 2003, 458 and 2003 and 459 of 2003. SUBMISSIONS: 3. Mr.Doiphode, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Review Petitions filed came to be dismissed holding them to be non maintainable. According to him, looking to the provisions of FERA, Review Petitions were very much maintainable. He further submits that, some of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal are not dealt with by the lower Appellate Authority as such impugned orders are liable to be set aside and matters need to be remanded for consideration afresh. He further submits that the impugned orders are bad and illegal since they are in breach of principles of natural justice as such liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr.Desai, learned Senior Counsel brought to our notice paragraph No.4 of the impugned order, which reads as under: 4. Shri Jaikumar D.Ved, Advocate, filed written submissions in appeal No.420/03 along with certain papers including judgments laying down judicial precedents. These written submissions are taken on record when he contended that the appeal may be disposed off on merits as per the records. The other appellants in appeal No.455/03, 456/03, 457/03, 458/03 and 459/03 are neither present nor represented despite notice against whom the Enforcement directorate has filed report of service which is taken on record. These appeals from appeal No.455/03 to 459/03 are disposed off exparte on the basis of records. (Emphasis supplied) :3: 5. Based on the aforesaid observations of the lower appellate authority, Mr.Desai, submits that in spite of giving repeated notices and chances, the appellants did not care to appear before the lower Appellate Authority to advance their submissions. In the circumstances, in his submissions, the lower Appellate Authority cannot be blamed for deciding appeals exparte. The said Authority was constrained to dismiss the appeals exparte on the basis of the record available. He further submits that the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the orders are in breach of principles of natural justice. 6. Mr.Desai further submits that so far as the tenability of remedy of Review is concerned, the provisions of FERA alone are required to be looked into which do not provide for Review. He also brought to our notice the observations and findings recorded by the lower appellate authority while disposing the Review Petition and urged that the view taken therein is a reasonable and possible view. As such, in his submission, the present appeals are without any substance. CONSIDERATION: 7. Having heard rival contentions, we agree with the submissions made by Mr.Desai. It is clear from paragraph No.4 of the impugned order (extracted hereinabove) that the appellants were given more than sufficient opportunities to appear before the lower appellate authority either personally or through their Advocate. In spite of repeated notices and opportunities, nobody appeared before the lower appellate authority on behalf of the appellants. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate authority was perfectly justified in disposing of all the appeals exparte on the basis of the record available. 8. So far as the maintainability of Review Petitions are concerned, they were nothing but a substantive review, which were not tenable for want of provision in that behalf under the provisions of the FERA. The view taken by :4: the lower appellate authority is a reasonable and possible view. No fault can be found with the view taken by the lower appellate authority. Under these circumstances, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. 10. In view of this order, no specific orders on Civil Applications are necessary for want of their survival. They be consigned to record. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)