P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved