AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.1968 relating to 44 cents comprised in Survey No.49/26 at Adambakkam revenue village, Saidapet Taluk and created equitable mortgage for the said loan. 2. On the ground that the amount due to the Bank was not repaid, the respondent-Bank filed a suit in O.A. No.1285 of 2001 and obtained a decree dated 12.5.2004. It is pertinent to point out that the defendants in the suit, including the guarantor R.M. Parthasarathy, who was impleaded as sixth defendant, remained ex-parte. Pursuant to the above decree, the Debt Recovery Certificate was also issued. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in M.A. No.97 of 2008 in the disposed O.A. No.1285 of 2001 claiming to be the legal represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved by that portion of the order, the present writ petition is filed. 6. According to the learned counsel, once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the earlier order of the Tribunal was null and void and non-est in law, it should have recalled the order and consequently should have allowed the relief for return of documents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank had opposed the writ petition basically on three grounds. Firstly, as against the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has got the remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and without availing such remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of the said submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e competent Authority during the month of May, 1993 and the police complaint lodged by the son of the deceased R.M. Parthasarathy on 25.6.1993 stating that the document in question was missing. This finding has not been questioned by the respondent-Bank and therefore, it has become final. An order becomes void, in the event action taken is Ultra Vires of the Statute. In the event the subject matter of adjudication is beyond the competence or the orders passed are such that the Tribunal has no authority to pass, the adjudication is ultra vires and in violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure and the jurisdiction assumed by wrongly deciding jurisdictional question of law or facts is also illegal. In the event of violation of f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estioned in this writ petition is a nullity and non est in law. In this context, we may also refer that when an order of the Tribunal is a nullity, an appeal therefrom cannot be of greater validity and in that sense, the question of directing the parties to prefer an appeal against that order, which is a nullity, is of no consequence. In the event when the order is void, non est, relegating a person to avail alternative remedy would result in palpable injustice. In that sense, in the decision reported in the case of MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. KAMAL KUMAR (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1321), the Apex Court has held that the High Court could retain the discretion to interfere in proper cases, even in the case when the impugned order is ultra vires. 13. On the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-est in law. When the decision of the Authority suffers from jurisdictional error or such decision is a nullity, that decision can be corrected by the said Authority and therefore, in such cases, the said Authority does not become functus officio after rendering the decision. 15. This takes us to the last consideration as to the order that could be passed in the writ petition. As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, the impugned order was passed without M/s Kalsar Marketing Agency Private Limited and five others being impleaded. That apart, the question of issuing direction to the respondent-Bank for release of documents cannot be ordered behind the back of the mortgager and therefore, to that extent ....