The subject matter of the Appeal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “DRT Act”) for setting aside judgment dated ……. in OA No. …………, being a nullity as passed without jurisdiction, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi falls within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors (AIR 2008 SC 1315; Decided on 24 January, 2008) has observed as follows.
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:
The subject matter of the Appeal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “DRT Act”) for setting aside judgment dated ……. in OA No. …………, being a nullity as passed without jurisdiction, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi falls within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors (AIR 2008 SC 1315; Decided on 24 January, 2008) has observed as follows.
“17. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”
Limitation:
The Appeal is within the limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the DRT Act, as the Recovery Certificate No. …….. dated …… issued pursuant to judgment dated ….. in OA No. ………, being a nullity as passed without jurisdiction, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi is at present in the process of being enforced against the Appellant.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors (AIR 2008 SC 1315; Decided on 24 January, 2008) has observed as follows.
“17. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”
The Court then proceeded to rely on the case in Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu [(1966) 1 SCR 461:AIR1966 SC 634] and observed in para 32 that neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a court, otherwise incompetent to try the suit. The Court further observed that:
‘It is well settled and needs no authority that “where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing”. A decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is non est and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice.’(Emphasis supplied)
Cotton Duvet Cover Can Be a Great Choice of Bedding
If you wish for the best Duvet Cover, then you have come to the right place. This place will provide you all the information that you will want to know about this cover, especially if you are planning to buy it.
Understanding the Role of Guarantors Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Indian Contract Act of 1872 outlines specific provisions regarding the role and obligations of guarantors, clarifying that the ultimate responsibility for debt recovery does not necessarily fall on the guarantor. This article delves into the nuances of these legal stipulations, providing a clearer understanding of the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved in a contract of guarantee.
Director’s Personal Guarantee - A Void Agreement -27.11.14
1 . Evolution of concept of legal entity A division bench of Delhi High Court in J B Exports Ltd and another vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd (2006 134 Comp cas 106 Del. decided on 3.3.2006) observed that “the concept that a company is a distinct legal entity apart from its shareholders, vide Salomon vs. Salomon & Co. (1897 AC 22 HL) had a historical purpose.
