Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Bombay HC on Nicotine Pouch Ban: Duty-Free Shops Must Comply with Domestic Laws  ||  SEBI Settles Hindenburg-linked Disclosure Cases Involving Five Adani Firms for Rs. 1.5 Crore  ||  Kerala High Court: Navy Court-Martial Proceedings Can Be Prosecuted by Investigating Officer  ||  Bombay HC: Arrest is Drastic; ED Cannot Halt Section 50 Questioning and Arrest on Same Material  ||  Supreme Court Proposes Unified Platform for Investment of Funds Deposited by Litigants  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Interfere When Tender Acceptance Violates NIT Conditions  ||  SC: Recovery of Tainted Money Without Proof of Bribe Demand Insufficient for Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Production of Original Deed Not a Ground to Discharge Accused    

The National Institute Of Technology And Anr. Vs. Union Of India And Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Aug 2022)

Merely because the Petitioner had not raised an objection or participated in proceedings would not validate any orders passed without jurisdiction by the Tribunal

MANU/DE/2966/2022

Service

Petitioner - The National Institute of Technology, Tripura, impugns judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that The National Institute of Technology, Agartala, is not a notified organization covered under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and, as such the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application.

It is an admitted position that, Petitioner organization is not a notified organization under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain petitions qua the said organization. Merely because the Petitioner had not raised an objection at an appropriate stage or had participated in proceedings before this Court without raising an objection would neither confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to pass orders qua the said organization nor sanctify or validate any orders passed without jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

The mere fact that Petitioners have implemented part of the order passed by the Tribunal, would also not legalize any order passed without jurisdiction. The implementation of the order would amount to a voluntary acceptance by the Petitioner of a direction which is not binding. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are orders passed without jurisdiction and are accordingly set aside. Petition allowed.

Tags : JURISDICTION   OBJECTION   PROCEEDINGS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved