Jurisdiction and Limitation issues before the DRAT- an order passed by DRT having no jurisdiction is

Jurisdiction and Limitation issues before the DRAT- an order passed by DRT having no jurisdiction is a nullity

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."

2. 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)

Narendra has around 26 years of rich experience in the domain of Companies Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Consumer Protection Act, Sica, 1985, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitization Act, 2002 etc.