SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty  ||  SC: Upholding Surendra Koli’s Conviction on Rejected Evidence Would Violate Articles 14 and 21  ||  SC: In Execution Petition, Decree-Holder Must Prove Violation by Judgment Debtor  ||  SC: Insurers Must Compensate Accident Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Owner  ||  Kerala HC: Long-Term Posting of Same Police Officer at Sabarimala May Affect Transparency, Efficiency  ||  Delhi HC: Post-Dated Cheques Given as Security Attract Section 138 NI Act After Liability Arises  ||  MP High Court: Railways Liable for Deaths on Tracks if it Fails to Take Preventive Measures  ||  Ker HC: NDPS Case Stands Even if Contraband Listed in Ml, if Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight  ||  Kerala HC: Father’s Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached for Child Maintenance Despite S.60(1)(g) CPC  ||  Supreme Court: A Decree Declared 'Nullity' Can be Challenged at Any Stage, Including Execution    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved