Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation  ||  Supreme Court: Forest Land Cannot Be Leased or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence and Accused’s Role Must Guide Suspension of Sentence under CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitral Awards Cannot be Set Aside For Mere Legal Errors or Misreading of Evidence  ||  SC Acknowledges Child Trafficking as a Grave Reality and Issues Guidelines to Assess Victim Evidence  ||  Allahabad HC: When Parties Extend an Agreement by Conduct, The Arbitration Clause Extends Too  ||  Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal    

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