{"id":343983,"date":"2025-03-20T11:00:44","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T05:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=343983"},"modified":"2025-03-25T09:31:17","modified_gmt":"2025-03-25T04:01:17","slug":"supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the division bench of Calcutta High Court, which, while deciding an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, allowed the respondents’ writ petition, and directed the Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (‘GRSE Ltd’), to appoint 48 out of the 51 writ petitioners on compassionate grounds, the division bench of Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. concluded that any adjudication beyond the allocated jurisdiction is void and must be treated as a nullity. It emphasized that the Chief Justice of the High Court, as primus inter pares<\/span>, holds the exclusive authority to set the roster, and such roster is final and binding on all Companion Justices of the court. Therefore, the Court held that both the order dated 11-03-2024, and the impugned order were passed without jurisdiction and could not be sustained in law.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The subject matter of the writ petition concerned refusal to offer compassionate appointment by GRSE Ltd. to the writ petitioners.<\/p>\n

The Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 21-02-2022 (under challenge in the intra-court appeal) had de-listed the writ petition awaiting a decision of this Court on the reference made to a larger bench in State Bank of India<\/span> v. Sheo Shankar Tewari<\/span>, (2019) 5 SCC 600<\/a>, with liberty to mention after the reference is answered. The Single Judge had referred to the decision of a bench of three-Judges in N.C. Santhosh<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, (2020) 7 SCC 617<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Issue<\/h3>\n

Whether judicial discipline and propriety, in the light of Rule 26 of Rules of High Court at Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226<\/a> of The Constitution of India<\/a>, (‘The Rules’) in relation to applications under Article 226 thereof and the powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster, were maintained.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that the decision at the relevant time had settled the issue regarding the applicable policy for considering applications for compassionate appointment. However, the Single Judge refrained from proceeding with the writ petition on the specious ground of a pending reference. While the Single Judge may not have been entirely justified in de-listing the writ petition on this basis and should have proceeded with its final adjudication in light of the prevailing law, no rights of the parties were determined, and no judgment was rendered in the context of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, it remains debatable whether an intra-court appeal could have been maintained before the Appellate Court against the order of de-listing, particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania<\/span> (1981) 4 SCC 8<\/a>. Even if such an intra-court appeal were maintainable, the writ petition had not been finally adjudicated, and since it was merely de-listed with liberty to be mentioned after the reference was answered, the most appropriate course of action would have been to request the Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with the law. The Court found it perplexing, however, that the Division Bench proceeded to hear and decide the writ petition.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of the Rule 26 of the Rules and said that since the Single Judge had not referred the writ petition to a bench of two Judges for hearing, the predecessor Division Bench erred in accepting the parties’ suggestion and proceeding to hear the writ petition without authorization from the Chief Justice. The Court emphasised the well-settled principle that ‘consent does not confer jurisdiction’<\/span> and stated that a judicial order based on the parties’ consent, which contravenes the Writ Rules and overrides the Chief Justice’s determination, could not have vested jurisdiction in the Appellate Court to hear the pending writ petition. Consequently, the Division Bench that passed the impugned order lacked the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition merely based on the earlier order dated 11-03-2024. The Court observed that the Division Bench had the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence of proper determination.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the cause-list of the predecessor Division Bench on 11-03-2024, as well as on 16-08-2024, when the writ petition was reserved for judgment, and 04-09-2024, when it was allowed, revealed that the Bench was designated to hear “Appeal from Order Relating to Service (Group VI) Including Applications Connected Thereto”. However, as per the roster set by the Chief Justice, the determination to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ was assigned only to Single Benches on the relevant dates.<\/p>\n

Given this clear allocation of jurisdiction, the Court held that neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the later Division Bench of the High Court had the authority to assume jurisdiction over the writ petition merely because they had jurisdiction over appeals from orders passed in such writ petitions. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined strictly by the Chief Justice’s allocation and cannot be assumed by a Bench outside the assigned determination.<\/p>\n

After referring to the law laid down in Sohan Lal Baid<\/span> v. State of West Bengal<\/span>, AIR 1990 Cal 168<\/a>, approved by this Court in State of Rajasthan<\/span> v. Prakash Chand<\/span>, (1998) 1 SCC 1<\/a> and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2018) 1 SCC 196<\/a>, as well as Rule 26 of the Rules, the Court held that any order which a bench – comprising of two judges or a single judge – may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them\/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, such an order is without jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded that any adjudication beyond the allocated jurisdiction is void and must be treated as a nullity.<\/span> It emphasized that the Chief Justice of the High Court, as primus inter pares<\/span>, holds the exclusive authority to set the roster, as reaffirmed in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all Companion Justices of the court.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court held that both the order dated 11-03-2024, and the impugned order were passed without jurisdiction and could not be sustained in law.<\/p>\n

The Court, without delving into the merits of the rival claims, set aside the impugned order on the limited ground of lack of jurisdiction and ordered a remand. Consequently, the writ petition was revived and placed back on the file of the High Court.<\/p>\n

The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for expeditious disposal, preferably within six months, considering the prolonged wait of the respondents for compassionate appointment and the GRSE Ltd. stance on the issue.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Court recorded the statement of GRSE Ltd., assuring that no appointment would be made until the High Court finally disposes of the writ petition. Thus, the Court declined to pass any interim order or extend the ad-interim order dated 01-08-2016, keeping the matter open for the High Court’s fresh adjudication.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2025 SCC OnLine SC 582<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
GRSE Limited Workmens Union<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span>
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Adv. Mr. Yati Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Akash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv., Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Dipankar
Dipankar Datta, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Rajesh
Rajesh Bindal, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court, without delving into the merits of the rival claims, set aside the impugned order on the limited ground of lack of jurisdiction and ordered a remand. Consequently, the writ petition was revived and placed back on the file of the High Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":343986,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[31647,2689,27934,32248,33494,3686,32196,79991,79992,5363,79993],"class_list":["post-343983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-adjudication","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-chief-justice","tag-division-bench","tag-judicial-order","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-letters-patent-appeal","tag-nullity","tag-roster-allocation","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-jurisdiction-ruling"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-20T05:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-25T04:01:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-20T05:30:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-25T04:01:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court jurisdiction ruling\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP","og_description":"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-03-20T05:30:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-25T04:01:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/","name":"Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp","datePublished":"2025-03-20T05:30:44+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-25T04:01:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court ruled that any adjudication beyond allocated jurisdiction is void, setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench order passed without jurisdiction.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court jurisdiction ruling"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/20\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-order-lack-of-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Adjudication beyond jurisdiction is void\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC order for lack of jurisdiction; Stalls appointments pending disposal of WP"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-ruling.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":33051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/18\/section-21-of-cpc-must-be-interpreted-in-consistent-with-the-objective-of-providing-remedies-to-the-accident-victims\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":0},"title":"Section 21 of CPC must be interpreted in consistent with the objective of providing remedies to the accident victims","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 18, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While adjudicating upon the question that whether the Calcutta High Court was right in setting aside an award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal merely on the ground that the Tribunal \u00a0lacked \u00a0Territorial jurisdiction, the Division Bench of Adarsh Kumar Goel and Anil R. Dave, JJ.,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259817,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/11\/alapan-bandhopadhyay-cat-constitution-bench\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":1},"title":"Cal HC had no jurisdiction to quash CAT Principle Bench’s transfer order in Alapan Bandhopadhyay Case, holds SC, based on this Constitution Bench Law holding ground since 1997","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 2-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, JJ has reiterated the position laid down by the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, that any decision of such a Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-27.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-27.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-27.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-27.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-27.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283494,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/09\/know-thy-judge-justice-dipankar-datta-legal-research-legal-news-updates-calcutta-high-court-supreme-court-judiciary-judges\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":2},"title":"Know Thy Judge| Justice Dipankar Datta","author":"Editor","date":"February 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice Dipankar Datta, was born on 09-02-1965 in a Bengali family. He served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as a Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, then he was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge by Chief Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud on 12-12-2022","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-342.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":312708,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/supreme-court-sets-aside-calcutta-hc-stay-order-desisted-exercising-contempt-jurisdiction-despite-contemnor-guilty\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":3},"title":"\u2018High Court desisted from exercising contempt jurisdiction despite finding contemnor guilty\u2019; Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC stay order","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reiterated that in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"contempt jurisdiction","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/contempt-jurisdiction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/contempt-jurisdiction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/contempt-jurisdiction.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/contempt-jurisdiction.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292783,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/22\/calcutta-high-court-dismissed-writ-petition-ground-of-maintainability-scc-blog-legal-reseach-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":4},"title":"Supplier can refer to MSME Facilitation Council for adjudication despite post-contract MSME registration: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"May 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe MSMED Act of 2006 is a special statute as it was specifically enacted for facilitating the promotion and development of micro, small and medium Enterprises and enhancing their competitiveness.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276065,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/22\/supervision-of-high-courts-over-national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission-a-conundrum-unresolved\/","url_meta":{"origin":343983,"position":5},"title":"Supervision of High Courts over National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: A Conundrum Unresolved","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bonny Mehra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-161-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-161-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-161-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-161-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-161-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=343983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343983\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/343986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=343983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=343983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=343983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}