Order Passed By Bench Not Conferred With Determination By Roster Is A Nullity: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta Excessive Court docket has held that orders handed by a bench which has not been conferred with that specific willpower by advantage of the roster determined by the Chief Justice would lack jurisdiction and be a nullity within the eyes of the legislation.
In answering a reference, the total bench of Justices Debangsu Basak, Shampa Sarkar and Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
The reference is answered by holding that, an order handed by a Bench of the Excessive Court docket not been conferred with the willpower by advantage of the roster fastened by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction in order to render the order so handed a nullity within the eye of legislation and void ab initio.
On the listening to of the reference, Advocate for the showing events submitted that the query framed within the reference is roofed by the ratio of 2025 case of Backyard Attain Shipbuilders and Engineers Restricted. vs. Grse Restricted Workmens Union and Others.
Appellants in FMAT 296 of 2024 claimed that they’re the homeowners of a selected immovable property by advantage of a registered deed of conveyance dated June 23, 2023. The appellants have claimed to be members of the tenants’ affiliation of the constructing through which the immovable property is located.
The appellants, worrying with the upkeep of the constructing, had participated in a gathering of the affiliation when, the appellants got here to study sure info. Appellants had learnt about Title Go well with no. 2602 of 2023 through which an interim order was handed. Appellant had filed a Civil Go well with, being Title Go well with no. 1037 of 2024.
In such a Civil Go well with, appellants had filed an software below Order XXXIX Rule 1 and a couple of of the Code of Civil Process, 1908. The Choose had declined to grant advert interim reduction to the appellants. Appellants had thereafter most well-liked an attraction from the refusal to grant advert interim reduction, being FMAT 269 of 2024, through which the order of reference has been made.
By the order dated November 4, 2024, handed in FMAT 269 of 2024, the Division Bench, admitted the attraction below Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 and directed that the identical be heard on the query of legislation framed.
The personal respondent within the attraction had utilized for vacating of the order dated November 4, 2024 on the bottom that when such order admitting the attraction was handed, the Division Bench didn’t have the requisite willpower to think about an software below Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 to confess the attraction.
The Division Bench making the reference, has thought of the difficulty as as to whether the sooner order handed by the Bench on November 4, 2024 recording that the attraction be deemed to be admitted below Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 and must be heard on the query framed, is a nullity and should be recalled on such floor.
After noticing the identical, the Division Bench held that, for the reason that lack of jurisdiction was not inherent or implicit, the order dated November 4, 2024 can’t be labelled as void ab initio or a nullity within the eye of the legislation as a result of lack of jurisdiction, however at finest irregular.
It seen the excellence between jurisdiction and willpower, and the opposite view of one other Division Bench rendered in The Kolkata Municipal Company and Ors. vs. AI-Sumama Agro Meals Non-public. Restricted and Others.
Thus, it refused to recall its earlier order dated November 4, 2024 regardless of noticing the truth that on such date, it didn’t have the requisite willpower to think about an attraction filed after 2020.
In contemplating the case legal guidelines positioned by the counsel, the bench said that these authorities, each by the Excessive Court docket and by the Supreme Court docket have held that, a Single Bench or a Division Bench derives jurisdiction to cope with and determine the instances or class of instances assigned to them by advantage of willpower made by the The Chief Justice.
It was said that the Division Bench in FMAT 269 of 2024 has noticedthat the excellence between the expression “jurisdiction” and “willpower” and held that the latter being solely a technical and administrative allocation, whereas the previous hits on the root of the facility exercised by the Court docket. It has seen that jurisdiction shouldn’t be conferred by the roster alone however is vested in a Court docket when it comes to a statute and Letters Patent of a Chartered Excessive Court docket.
Whereas the Excessive Court docket has the jurisdiction to confess and get rid of a matter, particular person Benches both sitting Singly or in a Division Bench or in any other case, can assume jurisdiction over the subject material solely in accordance with the allocation of enterprise by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice on the ideas of Grasp of Roster. Excessive Court docket’s jurisdiction to determine the lis will not be questioned. Nonetheless, train of jurisdiction in a person case exterior willpower could be questioned within the occasion, such Bench assumes jurisdiction past the allocation of enterprise by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, the bench held.
Thus, it answered the reference accordingly.