TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assets Reconstruction Company of India Ltd., which sold the property in question to the petitioner by a private treaty on 12th October, 2007. The Sale Certificates were issued on 23rd and 24th October, 2007. 3. On 03rd June, 2011, the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Nagpur, dismissed T.S.A. No. 73 of 2010, filed by the borrower, and the operative portion of which order is reproduced below:- "[01] T.S.A. No. 73/10 is dismissed. [02] The action of respondent no.1 is confirmed. The action for sale of properties by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.6 is also confirmed. [03] Respondent no.6 is allowed to deal with these properties and carry on its business in whatsoever manner as per their desire. Respondent no. 6 is declared absolute owner of these properties situated at Alampur as well as at Nagpur as respondent no.6 had already paid sale proceeds. [04] All the charges and claims are satisfied by this order in favour of respondent no.6 in respect of movable and immovable properties of Alampur Unit as well as Nagpur Unit. [05] I.A. No. 166/11 filed by the proposed intervener, M/s. Coventry Springs Ltd., is decided by passing separate order, whereby I.A. No. 166/11 is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2012 dismissed in default on 21st August, 2013 was restored by this Court on 27th February, 2014. It was ultimately allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 9th March, 2015. This Court set aside the order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal granting complete waiver of deposit, and directed the parties to appear before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 15th April, 2015. The Tribunal was permitted to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 18 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We are informed that the present Writ Petition was listed along with Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2012 and this Court was aware of the order dated 13th January, 2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal on merits. But, we do not find any reference to the said order in the ultimate decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2012. 8. Shri M. G. Bhangde, the learned Senior Advocate, has urged that the order dated 13th January, 2014 impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside on the sole grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its of the appeal in violation of second and third provisos below Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, becomes non-est for lack in inherent jurisdiction. 11. Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, dealing with the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal being relevant is reproduced below:- "18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal; Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less : Provided also that the Appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9 of the said decision is reproduced below:- "9. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction. The former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them and the orders passed therein a nullity. A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge subject to the law of limitation. In Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath it was held : "The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because the subject-matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it." 15. Keeping in view the law laid down by the....